Brush Type 1&2

[jim.snowdon]

9 hours ago, The Johnster said:

EE were beyond doubt the most successful supplier in terms of reliability, the 20s, 37s, and 40s being more or less bombproof.  They let themselves down with the Baby Deltics, though, and the proper Deltics were prima donnas, and would not have been tolerated without their teams of support technicians provided by EE at Doncaster.  The DP2 based 50s were regarded as unreliable for some time when they were transferred to the WR.  

 

Sulzer prime movers seem to have been well regarded as well, irrespective of the locos they were installed in.  There were few prime movers that were really dreadful, and reliability problems in some of the 1955 Plan locos were more to do with ancilliary equipment of various sorts.  

 

Metrovick did especially badly, and on the high profile Condor, the train that was suppose to take on the long distance door to door road transport competition, to boot.  Metrovick built locos for CIE, the Republic of Ireland's railway, as well and they did no better over there.  

 

Another dog, and one of the later introductions, was the hydraulic transmission D95xx, class 14 had it survived in BR service to carry TOPs numbers.  It had a very unpopular combination of an unreliable prime mover and transmission with feeble brakes, and was called the wonder loco; you wondered if it would go, and then if you got it going you wondered if it would stop...  Despite this, it's industrial owners after BR had had enough with it thought very well of it, perhaps because an industrial is never too far from the fitters and wagon brakes can be pinned down at low speeds.

When EE started building locos in earnest for BR they probably had more experience with traction diesel engines than the other contenders. Their equipment, both the engines and their control gear was very solidly engineered - rather more in tune with the hammer and oil can maintenance of the steam era than the clockmaking expected by other suppliers. It comes as no surprise that their products worked, and stayed working.

 

Where the bulk of the other Pilot Scheme loco designs fell down was in respect of their engines, and their inability to stand up to railway traction duties without suffering nasty mechanical failures. Sulzer engines, as licence built in the UK by Vickers, weren't too bad, but makers such as Paxman, Mirlees and Crossley soon found out that engines that would perform perfectly well in marine service would not survive the rigours of railway traction, in particular the frequent changes of power required, without suffering problems, mainly with crankcase failures and fluids getting into places they shouldn't. Their electrics generally worked, which should be no surprise given that all the suppliers involved already had considerable experience with electric traction. Discovering all those sorts of problems was one of the primary purposes of the Pilot Scheme, and in tat sense, it worked. Where things went wrong is when the politicians pressured BR into buying lots of diesel locomotives before that experience had been gained.

 

The Class 50s were a different issue entirely. The problem there was not the locomotive, or its engine, but the first generation electronics with which they were fitted. The Class 74s suffered similar problems. The problem is not in getting electronics (and analogue electronics at that) to replicate the functions of electromechanical equipment, but getting them to survive in the harsh electrical and mechanical environment of a railway vehicle. The general reckoning in the traction industry was that the nearest equivalent was a tank. It took a while for that to be understood and translated into design rules, and now, we take electronics on trains for granted. It also took a while after they were transferred to the WR that they could not be (mis)treated by the drivers in the same way the Westerns had been.

 

As for the D95xx, their subsequent owners, principally the NCB and British Steel were patently in no hurry to dump them. Granted they had engine problems (did any locomotive with Paxman engines not have problems, including HSTs?), but in the colliery and steelworks environments I don't suppose for one moment that their owners had staff running around pinning brakes down as and when required. If the loco couldn't stop the train it wasn't up to the job.

 

Jim

[Swindon 123]

On 23/11/2019 at 16:05, MidlandRed said:

To try and get all of this accurate, when was the loco classification system first applied? It must have been pre 68 as failures which we all now love, like the Co Bos and unmodified NBL D61xx got their classifications (28 and 21) before complete withdrawal in 1968 (started in 1967 although in the latter case some hadn't worked since 1962/3). 

 

The point of this is that the EE 1470 hp re-engining programme, starting with D5677, started before this and the whole class except D5500-5517/9 was given class 31, despite some 'class 31' still being in the forward programme for engine replacement. The others were class 30 owing to the electro-magnetic (red circle) control system as we've heard. Sub classes like 31/1 and 31/4 came quite a bit later. 

 

The final question relates to the Mirrless engines uprating. I was aware of D5835 (temporarily unrated to 1600 and I think 2000 for a short period) but it's been suggested there were others. Is there a definitive list and dates for the up rating? I find this concept quite fascinating given the whole class was eventually re-engined owing to issues with the originals. Or did the issues come to light later? 

 

Ps what an entertaining thread!

The 1600HP batch of 30/31's was as follows. D5545, D5655-70. They could be identified externally by an additional cover plate adjacent to and below the main radiator fan grill on the same side as the access steps. This gave access to an additional coolant header tank fitted on the 1600HP locos. The panel remained in place even after the locos were re-engined. The other uprated loco was D5835 which was fitted with an uprated and intercooled engine of 2000HP. This could be identified by the two extra grills at No2 end of the loco on the secondmans side, which it retained even after it was also re-engined. The whole class was derated in 1965 because of problems with the Mirlees engines, to 1250HP, regardless of engine fitted, except D5835 which was derated to 1600HP. When the last loco was re-engined in 1969, they were all then rated at 1470 HP. With regards to TOPS classification of locos, the TOPS class designations first came into being around 1968, although no TOPS numbers appeared on locos until 1973. At that time (1968) there were still some locos still fitted with Mirlees engines and were designated class 30. Any locos that had been re-engined were designated class 31. The original designation was going to be class 31/1 for the Red Circle locos, and 31/2 for the Blue Star fitted locos, but this was later changed to 31/0 and 31/1 respectively, with 31/4 being added when ETH was fitted to some locos.

 

Paul J.

[luckymucklebackit]

On 22/11/2019 at 14:22, MidlandRed said:

Extreme extreme pedant warning - the LMS/Ivatt North British 

800 hp (thus type1....) prototype 10800 was rebuilt by Brush as experimental AC loco, Hawk. The attached thread has some info and pics. So just about a Brush Type 1 although possibly never used in service as such.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/83327-hawk-the-forgotten-prototype/

 

I wondered if Hawk could have been classed as a  "Brush Type 1" as well, but when it was rebuilt by Brush they fitted a Maybach MD655 of 1,400 bhp. which put it firmly in the Type 2 category.

 

Jim

 

[Clive Mortimore]

All this waffle about Brush locos and no one has mentioned me or my mates, D1702-6, us less than loved class 48s.

one day the fat bald bloke will paint me and give me some buffers.

[Halvarras]

The first loco I saw with data panels was D838 Rapid at Plymouth North Road on 11/9/68. I remember wondering (a) what a Class 43 was, and (b) why Swindon had outshopped the loco in ex-works maroon nearly two years after switching to blue - and not necessarily in that order! Credible explanation still awaited......

I recall the news sections in the railway mags of the time showing the new data panels stuck to a Peak and a Deltic. Application could still be patchy though, ex-works 6585 seen at Exeter 2/1/69 didn't have any (locos outshopped without D prefixes or data panels must surely have been unusual).

Data panels are useful for dating photos too, e.g. D7045 was often included in lists of Hymeks in blue syp livery, but shots of it in green with data panels make that impossible.

From my own observations at the time the bulk of the depot-level TOPS renumbering of the BR loco fleet was achieved during February-April 1974. I'm interested in how this was organised and posted a request for info in Traction magazine a few years ago, but there were no takers......I live in hope!

[The Johnster]

D 868 must have been outshopped prior to 4/8/68, the last day of normal service for steam locos and the end of the practice of applying D prefixes to diesel locos; E prefixes for electrics continued until 1974 when all locos were given TOPS running numbers coinciding with the introduction of TOPS at freight yards, depots, and other terminals.  So it is possible that if had been last through works pre-66 and simply cleaned for special duty of some sort.

 

Data panels were applied at sheds, probably at major examination time in maintenance sheds rather than at running sheds, so you cannot assume that the application of one co-incides with blue livery,  D7045 may well have been repainted blue syp post 1966 and still have carried a data panel while in green livery.  The D prefix supports the idea that it was painted in blue livery prior to the end of steam, and an syp would suggest before the spring of '67 when lyp started to appear.  Lyp were painted at sheds as well; the first I saw were on ex-works D400s and D83xx series EE type 1s but they began appearing on dirty green locos very shortly afterwards.  I never saw an EE type 1 in a blue syp livery.

[The Johnster]

Getting back to Brush, only spotters ever called them that, on the WR at least.  Brush type 2, class 31, were ‘Mirlees’ irrespective of the actual prime mover, and Brush type 4, class 47, were ‘Sulzers’. 

[david.hill64]

Don't forget the 5 Brush class 48 locos. The only data panel I ever photographed was from one of these as I guessed it would not be around long.

[caradoc]

30 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Getting back to Brush, only spotters ever called them that, on the WR at least.  Brush type 2, class 31, were ‘Mirlees’ irrespective of the actual prime mover, and Brush type 4, class 47, were ‘Sulzers’. 

 

Old habits die hard on the railway ! When I started in Glasgow Control in 1984, some Controllers still wrote a D in front of diesel loco numbers, despite the D having finished in 1968, and all numbers now being TOPS.

 

[The Johnster]

Witness the description of signalmen as ‘bobbies’ or ‘officer’.  

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, david.hill64 said:

Don't forget the 5 Brush class 48 locos. The only data panel I ever photographed was from one of these as I guessed it would not be around long.

Like the one earlier in the thread. 

 

[Fat Controller]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

Witness the description of signalmen as ‘bobbies’ or ‘officer’.  

I wonder if the idea of 'point duty'  goes back  to then?

[62613]

2 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Getting back to Brush, only spotters ever called them that, on the WR at least.  Brush type 2, class 31, were ‘Mirlees’ irrespective of the actual prime mover, and Brush type 4, class 47, were ‘Sulzers’. 

Around March the type 2s were "Brushes"; the type 4s were "Duffs"

 

[Clive Mortimore]

The type 2s were Type 2s or Brushes to our trainspotting gang and the type 4s were Brush 4s or Type 4 1/2s. I never heard the term Duff until I was well past trainspotting and had started model making as an adult. 

Off course the first 20 type 2s were Toffee Apples. It was much later when I found out that was because of the shape of one of the control handles. 

[russ p]

I think duff was a trainspotter term and toffee apple was a railwayman term. 24s and 25/0s were sometimes called fruit machines or one armed bandits by drivers in the past but never seemed to make it to enthusiasts. 

That too was because of the controller 

[Clive Mortimore]

5 minutes ago, russ p said:

I think duff was a trainspotter term and toffee apple was a railwayman term. 24s and 25/0s were sometimes called fruit machines or one armed bandits by drivers in the past but never seemed to make it to enthusiasts. 

That too was because of the controller 

Hi Russ

 

I am pretty sure we got the term Type 4 1/2 from one our gang who's dad was a driver.  The same lad use to call class 45 Cromptons and 46s Brushes again it is what his dad called them, so we used the same names.  Toffee Apple was something we picked up, don't know were from but again that could be something someone knew the drivers called them. I have heard drivers ( well retired drivers now) call some class 15s AEIs not BTHs, because the last ones had AEI on their dials not BTH as BTH had been merged with AEI and all gear had AEI on it even if it was the same as the older BTH stuff.

[russ p]

I've heard 47s been called four and a halfs and also hawkers 

Interested about 15s I've heard them referred to as simply paxmans but NE drivers called claytons that too

[jim.snowdon]

1 hour ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Toffee Apple was something we picked up, don't know were from but again that could be something someone knew the drivers called them. I have heard drivers ( well retired drivers now) call some class 15s AEIs not BTHs, because the last ones had AEI on their dials not BTH as BTH had been merged with AEI and all gear had AEI on it even if it was the same as the older BTH stuff.

I believe the term "toffee apple" originated from the design of the master controller handle on that first batch.

 

And to be correct, AEI was formed out of the merger of Metropolitan-Vickers (which had originally been British Westinghouse) and British Thomson Houston (originally the British arm of Americal GE), although for a significant period whilst under AEI control, Metrovic and BTH competed against each other for contracts. AEI later merged its traction interests with EE to form EE-AEI Traction, which then became GEC Traction when the two companies were subsumed into the GEC empire under Weinstock. Now, even that has gone, with its remnants being part of Alstom, whose origins lie in the French Sprague Thomson Houston company, set up by American GE way back in the beginning.

 

Jim

[Halvarras]

On 25/11/2019 at 17:44, The Johnster said:

D7045 may well have been repainted blue syp post 1966 and still have carried a data panel while in green livery.

Sorry, I don't understand your logic here. It would have had to collect data panels before a repaint into blue syp Jan-Apr 67 - far too early. In reality it never carried that livery, displayed data panels on green syp in 1969 and went straight into blue fye with overpainted D prefixes.

D838 was definitely fully repainted, not cleaned - I have a copy of an ExeRail photo showing it gleaming (roof n all) inside Swindon Works alongside D7000, which was itself released on 22/9/68 in green with newly-applied full yellow ends - but without data panels! (Another ExeRail shot of D808 in green fye on Exeter SP would suggest that one was also fully repainted by Swindon in Dec 67, a year into the blue era).

Wrong thread for such a discussion really, best return control to the original subject!

[SRman]

Here's a question of no particular importance: when D5518 was rebuilt to blue star standard, did it retain the 'toffee apple' controller?

[Oldddudders]

Toffee apple! My Loco Controller colleague was baffled when he got a phonecall asking for "my toffee apple engine back, please". He came across the office to ask what we on Areas 1 & 4 might know. In fact I think the incoming train had simply got delayed on the way over from Temple Mills, the crew were going overtime, and had elected to go home pass, leaving their loco at Norwood Yard. I think a relief crew were sent across and the loco went back light engine. 

[russ p]

4 hours ago, SRman said:

Here's a question of no particular importance: when D5518 was rebuilt to blue star standard, did it retain the 'toffee apple' controller?

 

No it was completely rebuilt as a 31/1 , think it was 67 or 68 it was repainted as it had two new cabs but in green with full yellow ends and double arrows 

[SRman]

10 minutes ago, russ p said:

 

No it was completely rebuilt as a 31/1 , think it was 67 or 68 it was repainted as it had two new cabs but in green with full yellow ends and double arrows 

 

There is a pic somewhere of it at Tattenham Corner on a royal special in the condition you describe in 1968 with SR 20001 in pristine BR blue at the other end. I can't find that picture right now, but I seem to recall that it still lacked the engine room door grille at that time, but it (and the other remaining toffee apples) gained them at some time soon after that.

Thanks for the answer. I had guessed the new control system might have also included new controllers for the throttle and brakes, but you have confirmed it.

[russ p]

1 hour ago, SRman said:

 

There is a pic somewhere of it at Tattenham Corner on a royal special in the condition you describe in 1968 with SR 20001 in pristine BR blue at the other end. I can't find that picture right now, but I seem to recall that it still lacked the engine room door grille at that time, but it (and the other remaining toffee apples) gained them at some time soon after that.

Thanks for the answer. I had guessed the new control system might have also included new controllers for the throttle and brakes, but you have confirmed it.

 

I've seen that picture in the past but didn't realise the grilles were missing,  was that the only headcode fitted one not to have them?

[rogerzilla]

The Class 14 nickname of Teddy Bears is a reference to the ignominy felt by Swindon at having to build such an inconsequential piece of tin after The Great Bear (although that was a bit of a dog too, really just an excuse for Churchward to build a mahoosive boiler).