Class 50 why fifty.

[Zomboid]

Glory to the Hypnotoad, Zomboid.

 

I remember my first cabbing, lifted onto the footplate of 70026 Polar Star on the up Red Dragon at Cardiff General in 1957, when I was 5, by Uncle Ted; you never forget your first.

 

I understand your possible confusion between 47 and 50, as they were not radically different in the cab; do you remember a draught excluder with a small window let into it behind the driver and secondman's seats?

I don't reliably remember that kind of detail unfortunately (the draught excluder sounds familiar, but am I adding that now?). What I do know is that it was on a passenger train at Woking in the late 1980s, and at the time there were 4 types of train in my head beyond the really famous things like Thomas, Mallard and Big Boys - diesel, electric, steam (tender) and steam (tank).

It was definitely diesel, and I was utterly awestruck.

Suppose it might have been a 33, too. I'll never know, but 50s have more character so I choose to remember that.

Edited March 21, 2017 by Zomboid

[eastwestdivide]

...

Suppose it might have been a 33, too. I'll never know, but 50s have more character so I choose to remember that.

Careful, that's fighting talk round these parts!

[kevinlms]

Let's finally get one thing clear...

 

The 50s were not responsible for the demise/withdrawal/ending of the Westerns, B.R Headquarters had that privilege (for want of a better word).

 

The Class 50s were, and always will be, large, metal (inanimate, sometimes) objects with no means of having responsibility at all.

In all probability the LMR, when they realised the Class 50s were heading off to the WR, they did minimal maintenance to them - why would anyone expect anything different? Someone else's problem and budget - such is the world of business and accounting practices.

 

As for some of the special equipment on them, slow speed control, the rheostatic braking etc, maintenance on those 'features', probably went years ago. They only needed the multiple unit controls.

 

After all, why waste 100mph locos on freight services? Many previous comments have stated the Class 50s were seldom seen on freight trains. Makes sense to me & undoubtedly did to LMR management, who used them almost exclusively on their fastest passenger services.

[Zomboid]

Careful, that's fighting talk round these parts!

I like 33s. Good southern power.

Nothing diesel on these shores (aside from a few locos from south Wales) has the character of an Alco, but to me a 50 is the closest we got, right down to the reputation for being broken.

[Rugd1022]

In all probability the LMR, when they realised the Class 50s were heading off to the WR, they did minimal maintenance to them - why would anyone expect anything different? Someone else's problem and budget - such is the world of business and accounting practices.

 

As for some of the special equipment on them, slow speed control, the rheostatic braking etc, maintenance on those 'features', probably went years ago. They only needed the multiple unit controls.

 

After all, why waste 100mph locos on freight services? Many previous comments have stated the Class 50s were seldom seen on freight trains. Makes sense to me & undoubtedly did to LMR management, who used them almost exclusively on their fastest passenger services.

 

Although the 'minimal maintenance' rings true in their last days on the LMR, Crewe Works were still carrying out major overhauls on the 50s well into 1975, so some of them arrived on the WR in fairly good nick.

[Andy Y]

Let's finally get one thing clear...

 

The 50s were not responsible for the demise/withdrawal/ending of the Westerns, B.R Headquarters had that privilege (for want of a better word).

 

The Class 50s were, and always will be, large, metal (inanimate, sometimes) objects with no means of having responsibility at all.

 

The suits didn't come out for us to boo; the Fifties did.

 

I liked them on the LM but they never recovered their popularity in my book once they moved west after their collusion with management.

[Gary H]

Although the 'minimal maintenance' rings true in their last days on the LMR, Crewe Works were still carrying out major overhauls on the 50s well into 1975, so some of them arrived on the WR in fairly good nick.

Indeed. I witnessed some very lively runs on Paddington / Worcester's with un refurbed 50's in circa 78- 83. Whatever you think about them, love them or hate them, if you got a good one, they could really go like stink! That was certainly my experience with them in the 80's.

The book "BR Motive Power Performance" by David N.Clough & Martin Becket has a very interesting chapter, titled, A Type 4 challenge. A good read if you can find it!

It is said that "when running properly, Class 50 can beat any other Type 4 in all respects".

[APOLLO]

Here's one heading south through Wigan NW off to the western region somewhere. It's after 1972 as the wires are up. Wonder if she came back ?

 

 

Brit15

Edited March 21, 2017 by APOLLO

[slilley]

If the CMEE of BR at the time (Harrison) hadn't liked Sulzer engines so much, then 563 DP2s would've been interesting.....

 

Peter

 

In the Type 4 tender exercise of the summer of 1960 the cheapest bid offered by all the competing companies was by Brush for a loco of their design with a 16-cyl EE engine. A drawing of the proposed loco looking sort half Class 47 and half Class 50 was included on page 12 of Class 47 50 Years of Locomotive History. This loco was priced at £95,250 per loco. The EE offering with their engine in was priced at £107736 per loco.

 

There is no guarantee even if Harrison had liked the uprated 2700hp engine more in 1960 we would have had 500+ DP2s.

 

Simon

[russ p]

Did that design predate falcon or that already been designed?

[The Johnster]

I don't reliably remember that kind of detail unfortunately (the draught excluder sounds familiar, but am I adding that now?). What I do know is that it was on a passenger train at Woking in the late 1980s, and at the time there were 4 types of train in my head beyond the really famous things like Thomas, Mallard and Big Boys - diesel, electric, steam (tender) and steam (tank).

It was definitely diesel, and I was utterly awestruck.

Suppose it might have been a 33, too. I'll never know, but 50s have more character so I choose to remember that.

 

33 looks seriously different in the cab; you'd know!  Have to say that a passenger train at Woking sounds more like a 50 than anything else.

[Gary H]

Here's one heading south through Wigan NW off to the western region somewhere. It's after 1972 as the wires are up. Wonder if she came back ?

 

 

Nice one, Apollo!!

[The Johnster]

Let's finally get one thing clear...

 

The 50s were not responsible for the demise/withdrawal/ending of the Westerns, B.R Headquarters had that privilege (for want of a better word).

 

The Class 50s were, and always will be, large, metal (inanimate, sometimes) objects with no means of having responsibility at all.

 

Of course you are right, Flood, the Westerns were doomed by their inability to carry ETH and air conditioning equipment (the bodies were so crammed that there was no room to retrofit it) as well as being hydraulic, and my reaction at the time was a purely emotional one.  It is unfair to blame what were very good locos for a management decree, and had it not been the 50s on the WCML when they were new and later on the WR, it would have been a further production run of 47s.

[slilley]

Did that design predate falcon or that already been designed?

From what I have deduced the work on Falcon was already well underway by the time Brush turned their attention to the BTC's invitation to tender from May 1960. We were very lucky with the help we had from Brush at Loughborough who still have a collection of drawings from that time. Because of their help we were able to include this drawing and indeed the Sulzer engined alternative in the book.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

I was playing the Devils Advocate with the 500+ DP2s........................................

 

One thing I've never fully understood is the leasing agreement for the Class 50s.

 

Did the leasing agreement apply to the whole class from a certain date, or when each individual loco entered traffic?

 

Likewise, did all the class become BR property on the same date, or did the leasing agreement end after a certain  

period for each individual loco?

[keefer]

I've copied this over from my reply on another thread about the fitting of MU jumpers and the leasing arrangement: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/59936-class-50d400-mu-cables-fitting-date/

 

I've added bold to highlight an answer for Peter K.:

 

TRACTION magazine no.15 (jan 1996) has the first part of a good article on the cl.50s

All it mentions about the jumpers is what has already been said - only D400/401 had them fitted [as built] until it was decided to use them in pairs on the accelerated WCML services (from may 1970). hence, the rest of the locos were fitted in early 1970. [bR Fleet Survey 3 (2nd. ed), haresnape/ian allan 1984 says the remaining locos had their MU jumpers fitted at Crewe]

 

It goes into some detail re: the leasing agreement:
"The contract signed on 27th August 1967 had a 'Agreement to manufacture' between the BRB and EE Co.Ltd. This detailed the spec., manufacture and price of the locos ordered.
There was also an 'agreement to hire' between BRB and EE Leasing Ltd. which covered the period of hire, hire charges and BR's responsibility in maintaining the locos.
The contract had an initial hire period of 7 years from the commissioning date of each loco, with indefinite extension to that period by further hire charges."
Apparently, there was, initially, no provision in the contract for BR to purchase the locos (to do with capital tax allowances for EE).

The general gist of the agreement was that EE Co.Ltd sold the locos to EE Leasing Ltd., who then hired them to BR.

The end of the lease came about as penalties from poor availabilty etc. caused disagreement between BR and EE - BR usually claiming more redress than EE was prepared to offer. In the early 70s this got worse until it was agreed that BR would buy the fleet "and this was arranged during 1973 before the 7-yr hire period had expired"

Edited March 21, 2017 by keefer

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Thanks Keefer; much appreciated.

 

Anyone know the actual date when they became BR property?

['CHARD]

Let's finally get one thing clear...

 

The 50s were not responsible for the demise/withdrawal/ending of the Westerns, B.R Headquarters had that privilege (for want of a better word).

 

The Class 50s were, and always will be, large, metal (inanimate, sometimes) objects with no means of having responsibility at all.

 

You'll be telling me that Aberdeen Kirkhill isn't real next, and extinguishing my suspension of disbelief....

 

[The Stationmaster]

Of course you are right, Flood, the Westerns were doomed by their inability to carry ETH and air conditioning equipment (the bodies were so crammed that there was no room to retrofit it) as well as being hydraulic, and my reaction at the time was a purely emotional one.  It is unfair to blame what were very good locos for a management decree, and had it not been the 50s on the WCML when they were new and later on the WR, it would have been a further production run of 47s.

 

Allegedly a drawing was prepared for doing an ETH conversion of the D10XX but there were two concerns - firstly the air brake conversion work on the first one to be done had overrun massively the time allotted for the job as it was found more complex than expected.  But the real show stopper (apart from cost on a Class with an already artificially limited life) was that there was considered to be no way the reduction in horsepower for traction purposes would be acceptable so the idea quickly bit the dust.  It would have involved substantial surgery so in reality it probably wasn't even a starter before a drawing was prepared.

 

Once the 50s were sorted they turned out to be pretty good but as I've already said when they first reached the Western they were far from reliable.  In handling terms i found them quite different from the Brush 4 because even after refurbishment and removal of lots of gizmos the electronics still did a lot of the thinking especially when notching up but overall they were little different in terms of ability to maintain time with booked loads.

[Flood]

You'll be telling me that Aberdeen Kirkhill isn't real next, and extinguishing my suspension of disbelief....

 

I'm sorry I really can't have you spreading such malicious rumours!!!   Aberdeen Kirkhill is very real, just not in 12 inch to the foot scale.

 

Slightly more back on topic. From 1986 to 1996 I worked for the Procurement Department at B.R. When the Class 60s were due to be built, one of the buyers on the motive power section requested the files regarding the leasing arrangements for the Class 50s some 20 years earlier. In the end, of course, Brush built the Class 60s for B.R who paid for them outright after commissioning trials. Interesting to note that a possible leasing arrangement was thought of at the time though.

Edited March 22, 2017 by Flood

['CHARD]

I'm sorry I really can't have you spreading such malicious rumours!!!   Aberdeen Kirkhill is very real, just not in 12 inch to the foot scale.

 

Slightly more back on topic. From 1986 to 1996 I worked for the Procurement Department at B.R. When the Class 60s were due to be built, one of the buyers on the motive power section requested the files regarding the leasing arrangements for the Class 50s some 20 years earlier. In the end, of course, Brush built the Class 60s for B.R who paid for them outright after commissioning trials. Interesting to note that a possible leasing arrangement was thought of at the time though.

 

Many a time would I visit Derwent House for the periodic contract review process associated with the output of whichever BREL works I was looking after at the time!

 

Ironically I now have a workaday view from those very same windows!

[The Johnster]

Allegedly a drawing was prepared for doing an ETH conversion of the D10XX but there were two concerns - firstly the air brake conversion work on the first one to be done had overrun massively the time allotted for the job as it was found more complex than expected.  But the real show stopper (apart from cost on a Class with an already artificially limited life) was that there was considered to be no way the reduction in horsepower for traction purposes would be acceptable so the idea quickly bit the dust.  It would have involved substantial surgery so in reality it probably wasn't even a starter before a drawing was prepared.

 

Once the 50s were sorted they turned out to be pretty good but as I've already said when they first reached the Western they were far from reliable.  In handling terms i found them quite different from the Brush 4 because even after refurbishment and removal of lots of gizmos the electronics still did a lot of the thinking especially when notching up but overall they were little different in terms of ability to maintain time with booked loads.

 

Interesting to have the manager insider's viewpoint on this.  As I'd understood it, the 22, D800 Warships, and Hymeks were early candidates for withdrawal by virtue of the inability to equip them with train air brakes, and the D10xx failed to make the cut because of the same issue with ETH, having been successfully fitted with the air brakes.  The standardisation on electric transmission meant that no new hydraulic classes were to be designed, but had the existing locos been capable of working airbraked and/or ETH/airconditioned stock they would have been repaired and kept in service for a normal depreciation service life.  

 

I would note that the loss of traction horsepower on a nominally 2,700hp 52 for ETH is of the same order as that on an equally nominally 2,700hp but slightly heavier 50, and would be a higher percentage of the total horsepower (about 400 I believe) on a 47, yet ETH was provided for the latter classes, and the loads had to be further reduced, one of the factors leading to increased frequency of service to provide the same number of seats in a given time period.  

Edited March 22, 2017 by The Johnster

[Bomag]

I would note that the loss of traction horsepower on a nominally 2,700hp 52 for ETH is of the same order as that on an equally nominally 2,700hp but slightly heavier 50, and would be a higher percentage of the total horsepower (about 400 I believe) on a 47, yet ETH was provided for the latter classes, and the loads had to be further reduced, one of the factors leading to increased frequency of service to provide the same number of seats in a given time period.  

 

In a normal D/E all the traction and ETH power would come from a single generator/alternator (some had two). The RPM would be set by the combined load. For a D/H it would require an additional device (or two additional, one for each engine), the losses of having to put the engine energy through a generator and torque converter would likely be higher, leading to a higher overhead than a 50. Another issue is that engine RPM would be set via the power at rail. To get a working ETH at idle would require the system to work with varying voltage and/or amp-age - if I can remember back to A level physics this would require increase load from the engine.

Edited March 22, 2017 by Bomag

[Zomboid]

It would probably have been simpler to give them auxiliary engines like the 27s got.

[Titan]

It would probably have been simpler to give them auxiliary engines like the 27s got.

 

That was generally only an option if the steam heat boiler was no longer required and could be removed to make space. I think Westerns, like the Deltics, would have needed steam heat capability for the rest of their service life, or at least the next ten years or so if they lasted longer than that.