Why were the Peaks considered redundant?

[Covkid]

On 28/10/2021 at 14:04, Miss Prism said:

The power-to-weight ratio of the 47 was significantly better than the route-restricted 44/45.

 

The Peaks were handsome, though.

 

 

On 28/10/2021 at 14:07, phil-b259 said:

I believe the main issue is weight. The class 47 had the same power output as the Peaks but but were much lighter. Other things like the lack of a 'nose' on the 47s would have also made driver visibility from the cab, particularly at close range, better too.

 

On 28/10/2021 at 16:28, The Johnster said:

A 47 weighed 117tons, and a Peak came in at 142, with the 47 being slightly more powerful even after the 47's Sulzer spindizzy was derated by 100hp,, the difference being 'about a coach'.  Put another way, a 47 could haul a train with an extra coach or 2 loaded 16ton minerals or equivalent compared to a Peak to the same timings, or the same train to faster timings.  The Peak bogies were very long wheelbase, shared with the class 40 and Southern Railway designed diesel-electrics, and were thus restricted from some sidings and yard roads because of sharp curvature.  The driver's view ahead was better from the 47 cab, and the 47 was a lot shorter, so you could get more of them on to a shed road.

 

The Peaks were good engines, though, and what I regard as the best run of my railway career (Canton guard in the 70s) featured a 45, sadly can't recall the number now.  Gloucester Tramway to Cardiff Pengam Freightliner recep., full load 1,290tons, all speed restrictions properly observed, start to stop 54 miles in 57 minutes.

 

The ride was excellent with low mileage bogies but deteriorated over time, with the springs bottoming out which ISTR led to frame cracking being detected by ultrasonics, and this may have been a factor in the decision to withdraw the Peak classes, as well as the 40s.

 

Although the 45s and 46s were technically inferior to the 47s, you need to find out how they really compared out on the road.  The 45s had much longer legs than a 47 and could easily get you to three figures if you let them.  The 47 on the other hand was running out of wind in the 90s, so in terms of delivering speed, the 45 was the stronger loco.  However, the 45s and 46s were expensive to maintain with those big plate frame bogies, but from a footplate perspective, those who knew their capabilities would often prefer the 2500hp loco - particularly after their noses were welded up - warm as toast and rode so smoothly, compared to that slow roll of the Brush. 

 

The "cromptons" have been much maligned by younger enthusiasts probably without understanding how robust they were. Only got to drive one under the guidance of a laid back young driver. We were over the limit for a single engine but we decided to flag the banking engine and go with our 910 tons. She slowed to 15mph on the steepest part of the climb but never missed a beat. When we got to our destination we had to propel back on a rising and curved gradient through a double crossover into the yard. The controller was advanced to the "full" position and the ammeter went way round, but she walked her train away from the signal and soon had to ease her back. A 47 might have done that on a dry rail, but there was absolutely no drama with the Crompton and she just took it in her stride. 

 

Fantastic locos which I have always had the utmost respect for, whether it be "ton up" on the MML, lifting 15 sleeping cars out of Bristol, 1000t freights anywhere et al. 

 

  Please don't call them "wagons" because if you do, you obviously don't know their capabilities  

[The Johnster]

They were very good engines out on the road, able to to undertake an impressive range of duties from expresse passengers with eth/airco to part fitted freight hauls.  In terms of realpraktic they could do anything a 47 or a 52 could do notwithstanding the difference in hp at the crankshaft and the weight.  A 52 was nominally 200hp more powerful, and actually 34tons, a coach, lighter, but one was unaware of the Crompton's alleged shortcomings when it came to pulling trains. 

 

I regard the 47s as the best all round mixed traffic horse we had, but the 45s and 46s were very close to being as good and, as Covkid says, they had an edge when it came to fast running.  The weak point was undoubtedly the bogies, but it made little difference out on the road, and the 47's Commonwealths were not always the best possible ride.  My personal take was that the centre of gravity was a little high on the 47s, which rolled and pitched like ships in a gale in consequence.  The 1-Co bogies gave a firm and much more steady ride, and were excellent from that viewpoint when the loco was fresh from overhaul, but they deteriorated with mileage and the ride became hard, but there was none of the swaying and dipping that you got with a 47.

 

By the time the locos were built, there should have been a better bogie than the Bullied/Raworth 1-Co, the performance of which was already fully evaluated from 10101/2/3 and the 40s, which were still being built at the time.  Very shortly afterwards, 2nd generation locos of less than 120 tons all up on 6 wheeled bogies appeared; look at Lion, Falcon, and the 47s.  The 31 Commonwealth is also in contention here, a very successful design that could easily have been used beneath a 2,500hp+ loco of that sort of weight.  The 45s, when they were built, were the most powerful locomotives that BR owned.

 

So, one must ask (I contend) why the 45/6s were so heavy, and the answer seems to be 'because of the bogies'.  The alternatives in 1960 were the Class 31 A1A, the D600 A1A, and the Co from the Ivatt twins that had been used on the EM2 electrics.  The question then arises 'could the 45/6 have been built on a shorter frame with lighter equipment'.  I don't know, but perhaps someone here more knowledgeable in the matter could comment.  As always, the enemy of the designer is the British loading gauge and axle loading.  Was a sufficiently lightweight generator with the capacity to handle the 2.500hp engine output available in 1960?

 

There was one, that used on the prototype Deltic, but that may well have not been suitable for use on a general purpose locomotive.  Deltic was to the absolute limit of the loading gauge and a prima donna of exactly the sort that the 1955 plan had sought to avoid, so a loco of this sort would have been considered undesirable in 1960.

 

The 1960-1962 period was of very fast development in respect to Type 4s, of which an example that was more than 2,000hp had proven elusive and desirable following the failure of Class 40s to emulate 7P steam performance, which seems to have been rooted in the compromised steam data from the Rugby Testing Station.  On the WR, the D800 Warships were rated at 2,200 and one at 2.400hp, but this was not considered sufficient and the locos still had to be hammered to keep time.  The D1000 Westerns were the logical development, and these managed to do Castle work well enough.  These locos had twin engines so that hydraulic transmission could handle the output within the loading gauge, and the hydraulic line of development eventually proved to be a dead end but nobody knew that in 1960.  The Western's bogies were a poor design that vibrated horribly at the very 55-65mph range that would have been most useful for working 60mph block airbraked goods trains a few years later.

 

Away from the WR, the drive was to provide more powerful diesel electrics, and the Class 44 Peaks can be regarded as the first logical step; put a bigger prime mover in a loco based on the frames and running gear of a 40, 2,300hp.  Class 45 and 46 followed with a step up in power and a change in transmission equipment.  The frame cracking bogie problems were probably worse than on a 40 because of the greater strains imposed by the higher power output.  We still weren't quite there, but the power unit was the basis of `Lion, and the events surrounding the development of that loco after the collapse of BRCW by Derby and Brush into the 47.  Could Derby have made a better loco than a 44 in 1959?  Perhaps not.  Than a 45 in 1960, possibly. Than a 46 in 1961, probably, but it would have looked more like a 47.  In 1962, definitely, but it would have been a 47.

 

There was also Falcon, a Brush proof of concept diesel electric using the Maybach twin engine layout of the Westerns, but with much better bogies.  This appeared in 1961, and the weight was a major selling point, a 117ton deisel electric Western, only 9 tons more than the hydraulic loco.  All were stages representing reduced weight and increased power, but the eventual 'standard' became the 47, 512 locos built and only second to the 08s in total built.  This brings us back to the OP's original question (eventually); why were the Peaks scrapped.  The answer has to be  that they were life-expired at a time when traffic was reducing, and the 47s had been made reliable and efficient after a lot of initial teething troubles, and as well as being lighter and less prone to bogie problems, the Peaks were clearly doomed. 

[Covkid]

Pardon me for the slight deviation from the topic but in connection with "johnsters" ponderings, I have often considered this :

 

DP2 was apparently a production deltic bodyshell - the "23rd" !!    EE dropped a 16CSVT and generators, radiator fans etc etc into it. So the bodyshell went from being that of a 100t all up loco with two little Naper deltics, to having a huge 16 cylinder "rumbler" in it, but only apparently gaining an extra 5 or 7 tons depending on source.  Whwre did those extra 12 tons come from for the production class 50s ? 

Edited October 30, 2021 by Covkid

[Phil Bullock]

2 minutes ago, Covkid said:

Pardon me for the slight deviation from the topic but in connection with "johnsters" ponderings, I have often considered this :

 

DP2 was apparently a production deltic bodyshell - the "23rd" !!    EE dropped a 16CSVT and generators, radiator fans etc etc into it. So the bodyshell went from being that of a 100t all up loco with two little Naper deltics, to having a huge 16 cylinder "rumbler" in it, but only apparently gaining an extra 5 or 7 tons depending on source.  Whwre did those extra 12 tons come from for the production class 50s ? 

 

DP2 was a loco of the early 60s. By the time the D400s arrived all sorts of knobs bells and whistles were added… slow speed control, inertial filtration, air brakes and more …. With the intent of increasing versatility. In a class specifically intended for express passenger use … 

[jessy1692]

20 hours ago, Covkid said:

Pardon me for the slight deviation from the topic but in connection with "johnsters" ponderings, I have often considered this :

 

DP2 was apparently a production deltic bodyshell - the "23rd" !!    EE dropped a 16CSVT and generators, radiator fans etc etc into it. So the bodyshell went from being that of a 100t all up loco with two little Naper deltics, to having a huge 16 cylinder "rumbler" in it, but only apparently gaining an extra 5 or 7 tons depending on source.  Whwre did those extra 12 tons come from for the production class 50s ? 

I think I read somewhere if DP2 was taken off the deltic production it was around number 17 or 18 off top of my head, however, the works build number doesn't add to it being in the deltic sequence. Having said that I'm not sure if works numbers were allocated until completion, also EE probably were building locos for all corners of the globe at the time as well.

I'm sure I put the info on a thread somewhere... I'll try dig it up.

Cheers

James

Edit, found it:

 

Edited October 31, 2021 by jessy1692
Adding details

[The Johnster]

The 50s were developed from DP2, but were not, despite appearances, a different type of 47.  Power and weight are the same, but the 50s were ordered by the LMR to deliver promised timetable improvements on the WCML after the Weaver-Motherwell electrification had been postponed.  The loco planned for this was the Class 87, 5,400hp of it but not built until 1974; the timetable improvement was for 1966. LMR specified a Type 4 that could be driven in multiple and had a top speed of 110mph, which was a spec that the 47s could not meet, and they were considered express passenger horses for most of their careers.  The 'bells and whistles' were the final development of 2nd generation locos, and gave a good bit of trouble when the locos were transferred to the WR in '74; they took the form of electronic circuitry in the control equipment that was not available when DP2 was built. 

 

It is interesting to note that it was at around this time that electronic slow speed control began to appear on 47s and 20s for MGR work.  There was no new diesel locomotive design introduced between 1962 and 1966 except the D95xx which can be discounted in evolutionary terms, and none between 1966 and 1974, by which time we were talking in terms of '3rd generation' with the 56 and HST.

[MidlandRed]

3 hours ago, The Johnster said:

The 50s were developed from DP2, but were not, despite appearances, a different type of 47.  Power and weight are the same, but the 50s were ordered by the LMR to deliver promised timetable improvements on the WCML after the Weaver-Motherwell electrification had been postponed.  The loco planned for this was the Class 87, 5,400hp of it but not built until 1974; the timetable improvement was for 1966. LMR specified a Type 4 that could be driven in multiple and had a top speed of 110mph, which was a spec that the 47s could not meet, and they were considered express passenger horses for most of their careers.  The 'bells and whistles' were the final development of 2nd generation locos, and gave a good bit of trouble when the locos were transferred to the WR in '74; they took the form of electronic circuitry in the control equipment that was not available when DP2 was built. 

I recall these, new on the WCML and later working double headed (5400 hp) for speeded up Anglo-Scottish services, but I don’t recall them being reported as particularly unreliable on the LMR and they seemed to do the job successfully for some years (happy to be corrected).
 

In these circumstances I never did understand why they were considered troublesome on the WR initially although I recall it took some time for the whole batch of 50 to be transferred - was this down to initial unfamiliarity, or some change in their reliability after transfer - after all they had been doing the job for 6-7 yrs on the LMR and ScR when the electrification (and class 87; rebuilt class 83 and 84 kicked in). 

Edited October 30, 2021 by MidlandRed

[The Johnster]

I was told that it was a matter of problems with the electronic control system, though what they actually were I had no idea.  I suspect that the root cause was that the LMR were familiar with the locos and the WR wern't, and that some of the LMR's knowledge failed to survive the transfer.  Like the Warships which they in part replaced, they were uncommon north and west of the Severn for many years, and TTBOMK Canton never signed them.  I rode behind both these and DP2 (Doncaster-Selby in 1966) and can confirm that they could certainly move!

[Pandora]

Jumping into this thread I thought the reasons the Peaks became redundant was the rundown in their  parcels traffic work  during the 1980s, and the reduction  of steam-heated Mark 1 stock saw around  half of the fleet of surplus to requirements

Edited October 31, 2021 by Pandora

[kevinlms]

6 hours ago, MidlandRed said:

I recall these, new on the WCML and later working double headed (5400 hp) for speeded up Anglo-Scottish services, but I don’t recall them being reported as particularly unreliable on the LMR and they seemed to do the job successfully for some years (happy to be corrected).
 

In these circumstances I never did understand why they were considered troublesome on the WR initially although I recall it took some time for the whole batch of 50 to be transferred - was this down to initial unfamiliarity, or some change in their reliability after transfer - after all they had been doing the job for 6-7 yrs on the LMR and ScR when the electrification (and class 87; rebuilt class 83 and 84 kicked in). 

Yes, I don't ever remember reading how the LMR, were glad to get rid of the D400s!

Perhaps the LMR did save on maintenance when they learnt that they were leaving. After all, if some one plans to update their car in 6 months, do they do more than essential maintenance? Probably not!

 

I suspect that the problem lay in how they were operated. On the LMR, they were mostly operated in tandem and so the full combined power wasn't required for long periods, so eased off a lot.

On transfer to the WR, they were used singularly and probably required full power for longer periods, thus exposing any weaknesses, which had been hidden before.

 

The WR later found out that HST's didn't preform that well, with one power car dead. Two working power cars made a huge difference.

[MarkC]

3 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Yes, I don't ever remember reading how the LMR, were glad to get rid of the D400s!

Perhaps the LMR did save on maintenance when they learnt that they were leaving. After all, if some one plans to update their car in 6 months, do they do more than essential maintenance? Probably not!

 

I suspect that the problem lay in how they were operated. On the LMR, they were mostly operated in tandem and so the full combined power wasn't required for long periods, so eased off a lot.

On transfer to the WR, they were used singularly and probably required full power for longer periods, thus exposing any weaknesses, which had been hidden before.

 

The WR later found out that HST's didn't preform that well, with one power car dead. Two working power cars made a huge difference.

IIRC double heading wasn't the norm on the LMR/Scr over Shap & Beattock; only the 'crack' trains like the Royal Scot were treated to 2x D400s.

 

Maintenance issues may well have been involved when they were transferred to the WR - however at 6-7 years old they were probably approaching the time for some serious maintenance anyway, especially the auxiliary equipment. Bear in mind, too, that back then the WR technical staff weren't as familiar with high power diesel-electric locomotives as their LMR & ScR colleagues.

[adb968008]

Coming back to the original point about redundancy…

 

I recall it was the final deliveries of class 56/58’s on one side, New HSTs, later, ECML electrification / cascading HSTs on the other that simply squeezed them out of work.

[Rivercider]

15 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Coming back to the original point about redundancy…

 

I recall it was the final deliveries of class 56/58’s on one side, New HSTs, later, ECML electrification / cascading HSTs on the other that simply squeezed them out of work.

Agreed.

Like a number of diesel classes before them the work was no longer there. The demise of the traditional vacuum braked freight network, and general loss of freight traffic lead to a reduction in the loco fleet in general.

 

cheers  

[Pandora]

2 hours ago, MarkC said:

IIRC double heading wasn't the norm on the LMR/Scr over Shap & Beattock; only the 'crack' trains like the Royal Scot were treated to 2x D400s.

 

Maintenance issues may well have been involved when they were transferred to the WR - however at 6-7 years old they were probably approaching the time for some serious maintenance anyway, especially the auxiliary equipment. Bear in mind, too, that back then the WR technical staff weren't as familiar with high power diesel-electric locomotives as their LMR & ScR colleagues.

A shed tour of Crewe depot in 1971, (with Permit) the Fitter was quite free with his knowledge of the D400s he described the many problems they were trying to sort out on the D400s, at the time they were on lease, 4 years into service and they were still not right,  From memories of spotting days at Crewe on the platform end, watching the Electric detach and the Diesel attach,  Y can only Double heading as the standard  for the Class 50 working passenger trains during daylight hours  north of Crewe

Edited October 31, 2021 by Pandora

[MidlandRed]

IIRC the class 50s were not used initially in multiple - this was a later development and indeed, on almost all of the locos the equipment on the front of the cab was not fitted initially and covered with blanking plates. So they were used singly for some time.

 

My take on the peaks - the design was obsolete by the early 60s, when BR sought tenders for a new type of lighter, Co Co bogie mounted loco of 2750 hp - this resulted in Lion, Falcon, DP2 and subsequently (circa 1962/3) the start of delivery of the first of 512 Brush Type 4s.

 

However the locos were far from redundant - the D1-10 batch were moved from the WCML to Toton in the early 60s where they worked heavy coal trains until the mid/late 70s, day in day out; the class 45 was the mainstay of MML express passenger until the HSTs in the mid late 70s, and those and class 46 the same story on NE/SW passenger. In fact from 1969 class 46 were allocated to Bristol BR in replacement for class 43 Warships and they then worked NE/SW trains through Devon (observations in summer 67 over a couple of weeks produced one class 47 and one class 45 - the rest was wall to wall hydraulic). Also Gateshead class 46s (along with 40 and 47) worked a proportion of ECML express passenger alongside Deltics - this probably changed also with HST introduction.

 

However as with class 40, which had been the mainstay of WCML express passenger until the electrification was complete between Euston, the Midlands and the north west in 1966/67 - the peaks were redeployed to other passenger and freight services - these heavily built locos with relatively high power being suited (as shown by D1-10) to heavy freight work - presumably having a relatively sure footed characteristic both in starting and stopping trains.

 

The real change came in the early 80s when massive industrial closures took place under that infamous Government, the miners strike/political battle, and closure of much of the coal industry - this led to significant reductions in freight traffic and the Peaks were already 20+ yrs old so at the front end of any withdrawals due to locomotive surplus and they were at or approaching life expiry anyway - the class 40 suffered similarly, although started a little earlier with first handful of withdrawals in the mid 70s. As well as this, the presence of 135 modern and more powerful class 56s and 50 new class 58s for heavy freight use (presumably ordered and planned to cope with pre mid 80s traffic levels) meant there was a locomotive surplus. 
 

Some has this has been covered in other posts but put simply the work they had done either evaporated, or disappeared because of other stock and locos being cascaded around the system. However they were a great workhorse for 20-25 yrs +

Edited October 31, 2021 by MidlandRed

[The Johnster]

6 hours ago, MarkC said:

. Bear in mind, too, that back then the WR technical staff weren't as familiar with high power diesel-electric locomotives as their LMR & ScR colleagues.

The WR was familiar with the various vaguaries of the Class 47s, which had been on the region since 1963 and were the sole class used on the mk2 airconditioned stock that worked the Paddington-Bristol/WSM trains and the Swanseas between 1972 and the introduction of the HSTs.  Prior to 1972, 47s were used more or less indiscriminately on those routes with Westerns, though were less common on the West of England main line or downline from WSM, where as has been stated it was basically wall to wall hydraulics. 

 

The 50s, we were told, were the replacement for the Westerns, which had failed to tick two boxs; they were hydraulics, which had been declared anathema, and could not be fitted with eth or the generators and other auxiliary kit for the airconditioned mk2s.  The nominal shaft horsepower was the same, 2.700.  But the 50s were clearly a different sort of horse to the Westerns, and were not used to anything like the same extent on freight work.

 

Westerns were excellent heavy freight haulers, and were used on the South Wales-Acton class 8 coal runs, Freightliners, and block oil trains (though we preferred 47s for this as the Westerns vibrated violently between 55 and 65mph).  They are thought of as express passenger locos but were a powerful mixed traffic type in reality.  The 90mph hydraulics were becoming considered a little tardy by the early 70s on top link passenger jobs, and the 95mph 47s were not much better; the arrival of the 110mph 50s made timekeeping a bit more reliable, and was probably the main reason they were seldom allocated to freight work.  Of course, this a was diminishing sector by then and the South Wales-Acton class 8s' days in particular were numbered.  Of course, the hydraulics were easily capable of well in excess of their rated 90mph, but at the cost of down time in the maintenance sheds.  The 50s took it in their stride.

 

Another point is that the WR's main lines ran through more open and rural territory than other regions'.  A WCML stopper between Crewe and Carlisle might call at Warrington, Preston, Lancaster, Carnforth, Oxenhomle, and Penrith, whereas a WR equivalant would do Reading and then; it it was routed down the West of England, run fast all the way to Westbury then Taunton.  The WR had to thrash it's express passenger locos without respite over these longer runs, and ran into problems in consequence; in 1961/2 the timetable was close to collapse as steam was hastily withdrawn and the replacement Warships were unable to cope with the hammering and became bay blockers at Swindon Works.  The introduction of the Westerns helped as did the availability of new 47s in 1963/4.  By 1969 there were enough locos to allow double heading with Warships on the West of England route.

 

The  50s were thrashed on the WR, and on the LSW main line as well, over these longer distances and hilly routes, in a way that by and large they weren't on the LMR, where the top link jobs had them double headed.  This may have a bearing on the excess down time.

 

I sometimes wonder if BR originally intended to end up with more than 500 47s, a good stopgap but still not the ideal 7P/8F replacement they were looking for in the early 60s.  The ER originally ordered 50 of them in 1962 to replace their 7P A3s and the various Thompson/Peppercorns, as a backup to the Deltics which were very much an A4 replacement.  I don't think there were any more orders initially, but the next was placed by the WR, which with a backlog of failed Warships delaying the Swindon Western build was desperate for high powered Type 4s, to the extent that it basically abandoned it's treasured hydraulic program.  A 117ton 47 was acceptable to the region as a substiute for a 108 ton Western, and was in any case all that could be supplied quickly at the time; there was no real alternative.  Then the LMR wanted some, then the WR wanted more, and the numbers racked up.

 

By the late 60s, there were sufficient high powered Type 4s in service, the Peaks, Westerns, 50s, and 47s.  But none of these was a perfect answer to the 7P/9F question; the Peaks were heavy and had antediluvian bogies, the Westerns could not be adapted to run with modern passenger stock shortly to be introduced, 50s were not suitable for freight work, even Freightliners (they were used on such jobs but not as a general rule), and the 47s were too slow.  There never was a perfect Type 4; you might argue that the 37 was a perfect Type 3, the 31 a perfect Type 2 (and the 25s not bad for slow local work), and the 20 a perfect Type 1.

 

Interesting that the TOPS class numbers suggest that 50s, 52s, 1200, and the Deltics were considered to be Type 5s, for which I always understood the threshold to be 3,000hp; Ian Allan is to blame for this.  We had to wait for the 67 for a really good Type 4, 30 years after it was needed.

[slilley]

On 28/10/2021 at 13:50, Lacathedrale said:

I've read in the 'what if the Pilot Scheme was allowed to Run' thread in the discussion forum, and would just like to confirm the reasoning why so many people have written there that the 44/45/46's were essentially obsolete in favour of the 47. Is it purely a cost/power comparison, or is there something else to it? I'm reminded of the wonderful video on YT about the Peaks:

 

 

The short answer to your question, all laid out in Class 47 50 Years of Locomotive History is twofold. Firstly in Jan 1960 BR came up with a Standard Type 4 specification which was put out to tender. This was for a 2700hp loco on 6 axles weighing 114 tons using either an EE or Sulzer engine.

 

The winner of that tender was the BRCW/AEI/Sulzer consortium with Lion. Orders though were not placed. In Feb 1961 having just cut ten sets of equipment from Crompton Parkinson for Peaks and allocated them to Brush instead due to supply issues, the BTC's CME JF Harrison decided building Peaks no longer represented value for money and so cut the electrical equipment order to Brush to 56 sets. The spare 20 were to be used to build a new loco to the new Standard Type 4 specification. BRCW and Brush were involved in the discussions as to how this would happen, and Brush proved to be the cheaper option. The order for 20 Brush Type 4s was placed on 28 Feb 1961.

 

There was a further tender exercise in 1962 which Brush came out on top.

 

That is a very brief summary of what happened, as I say it is all in my book Class 47 50 Years of Locomotive History and based on many hours of trawling through both BR and Brush archive material. 

 

The book published in 2012 rarely comes up for sale second hand, but there is a copy up for auction on ebay at present. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/403257821941

 

Simon

[slilley]

8 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Coming back to the original point about redundancy…

 

I recall it was the final deliveries of class 56/58’s on one side, New HSTs, later, ECML electrification / cascading HSTs on the other that simply squeezed them out of work.

Not forgetting that they were 20 years old or more (so close tolife expired),costing ever increasing amounts to maintain and with a low miles per casualty return. Various Rail Plans of the early 80s had them all going by the time they did.

[slilley]

On 29/10/2021 at 20:43, w124bob said:

Any truth in the story that the class 46 came about almost my accident, something I read about Crompton Parkinson electrical gear being in short supply, so a decision was taken to use brush gear to finish production rather than wait. The class 46 were reported to have inferior power characteristics. 

I trained class 45's in April '87, the last to do so at Manchester Victoria, my last run out on one being on a late running Harwich Blackpool. Terminated at Preston to return right time, I think the loco was 45150. Incidentally old hands always refered to them as "Cromptons". 

When BR tendered for 66 sets of equipment in May 1960, Brush came out cheaper. On 15 December 1960 Crompton Parkinson's order for 137 sets of equipment was cut by 10 due to ongoing supply issues, not only for the Peaks but for the Class 33s as well. Those locomotives were considerably late and that tale is told in my book on the Class 33s.

 

I am writing a book on the Peaks as we speak and there were considerable delays with CP supplying equipment to BR to build the locos.

 

Simon 

[MidlandRed]

3 hours ago, The Johnster said:

The WR was familiar with the various vaguaries of the Class 47s, which had been on the region since 1963 and were the sole class used on the mk2 airconditioned stock that worked the Paddington-Bristol/WSM trains and the Swanseas between 1972 and the introduction of the HSTs.  Prior to 1972, 47s were used more or less indiscriminately on those routes with Westerns, though were less common on the West of England main line or downline from WSM, where as has been stated it was basically wall to wall hydraulics. 

 

The 50s, we were told, were the replacement for the Westerns, which had failed to tick two boxs; they were hydraulics, which had been declared anathema, and could not be fitted with eth or the generators and other auxiliary kit for the airconditioned mk2s.  The nominal shaft horsepower was the same, 2.700.  But the 50s were clearly a different sort of horse to the Westerns, and were not used to anything like the same extent on freight work.

 

Westerns were excellent heavy freight haulers, and were used on the South Wales-Acton class 8 coal runs, Freightliners, and block oil trains (though we preferred 47s for this as the Westerns vibrated violently between 55 and 65mph).  They are thought of as express passenger locos but were a powerful mixed traffic type in reality.  The 90mph hydraulics were becoming considered a little tardy by the early 70s on top link passenger jobs, and the 95mph 47s were not much better; the arrival of the 110mph 50s made timekeeping a bit more reliable, and was probably the main reason they were seldom allocated to freight work.  Of course, this a was diminishing sector by then and the South Wales-Acton class 8s' days in particular were numbered.  Of course, the hydraulics were easily capable of well in excess of their rated 90mph, but at the cost of down time in the maintenance sheds.  The 50s took it in their stride.

 

Another point is that the WR's main lines ran through more open and rural territory than other regions'.  A WCML stopper between Crewe and Carlisle might call at Warrington, Preston, Lancaster, Carnforth, Oxenhomle, and Penrith, whereas a WR equivalant would do Reading and then; it it was routed down the West of England, run fast all the way to Westbury then Taunton.  The WR had to thrash it's express passenger locos without respite over these longer runs, and ran into problems in consequence; in 1961/2 the timetable was close to collapse as steam was hastily withdrawn and the replacement Warships were unable to cope with the hammering and became bay blockers at Swindon Works.  The introduction of the Westerns helped as did the availability of new 47s in 1963/4.  By 1969 there were enough locos to allow double heading with Warships on the West of England route.

 

The  50s were thrashed on the WR, and on the LSW main line as well, over these longer distances and hilly routes, in a way that by and large they weren't on the LMR, where the top link jobs had them double headed.  This may have a bearing on the excess down time.

 

I sometimes wonder if BR originally intended to end up with more than 500 47s, a good stopgap but still not the ideal 7P/8F replacement they were looking for in the early 60s.  The ER originally ordered 50 of them in 1962 to replace their 7P A3s and the various Thompson/Peppercorns, as a backup to the Deltics which were very much an A4 replacement.  I don't think there were any more orders initially, but the next was placed by the WR, which with a backlog of failed Warships delaying the Swindon Western build was desperate for high powered Type 4s, to the extent that it basically abandoned it's treasured hydraulic program.  A 117ton 47 was acceptable to the region as a substiute for a 108 ton Western, and was in any case all that could be supplied quickly at the time; there was no real alternative.  Then the LMR wanted some, then the WR wanted more, and the numbers racked up.

 

By the late 60s, there were sufficient high powered Type 4s in service, the Peaks, Westerns, 50s, and 47s.  But none of these was a perfect answer to the 7P/9F question; the Peaks were heavy and had antediluvian bogies, the Westerns could not be adapted to run with modern passenger stock shortly to be introduced, 50s were not suitable for freight work, even Freightliners (they were used on such jobs but not as a general rule), and the 47s were too slow.  There never was a perfect Type 4; you might argue that the 37 was a perfect Type 3, the 31 a perfect Type 2 (and the 25s not bad for slow local work), and the 20 a perfect Type 1.

 

Interesting that the TOPS class numbers suggest that 50s, 52s, 1200, and the Deltics were considered to be Type 5s, for which I always understood the threshold to be 3,000hp; Ian Allan is to blame for this.  We had to wait for the 67 for a really good Type 4, 30 years after it was needed.

@The Johnster, I don’t disagree with what you’ve said - with one exception. The BTC was broken up by the Transport Act, 1962 and BR and it’s governance was reorganised to create central control and remove the Area Boards (15 yrs after nationalisation)  - this had far reaching consequences for regional (including loco works which were placed under BR workshops and removed from regional control) autonomy. Traction was planned by the BRB on a national basis (resulting in the National Traction Plan, first version 1965). The WR was to receive diesel electrics (Brush Type 4 and EE Type 3). This was a Policy decision presumably as well as a reaction to the problems occurring on the WR.

 

Notably the Birmingham Division of the WR was moved to the LMR in 1963 and the hitherto Western operated express passenger services (Birkenhead and West Midlands to Paddington) went over to brand new Brush Type 4s in the D1682 onwards series, allocated at OOC or Oxley. 

Edited October 31, 2021 by MidlandRed

[The Johnster]

The NTP certainly played it's part, but the main driver was that the WR was drastically short of express passenger locomotives in 1962, and the Swindon Westerns were delayed in consequence.  That Brush were in a position to supply as many 47s as might be needed, and quickly since the production line was already set up for the ECML locomotives, and that the same position pertained with regard to Type 3s, consequent upon the demise of Beyer Peacock and the supply of new Hymeks, with EE happy to supply 37s, was a matter of luck and if t'were not so the WR would have been in serious trouble, quickly, and would have had little option but to reinstate withdrawn Castles, possibly even to the extent of buying them back from the scrappies, a political hit they certainly didn't want to take!

 

My view is that all this 'informed' the NTP at least as much as the plethrora of useless Type 1s and 2s, and was the deciding nail in the coffin of Swindon's hydraulic dream, and, evenutally, of Swindon Works.  A hundred low geared Hymeks had been ordered from B-P to replace the 56xx and 42xx, and a 3khp 'Super Western' was being considered at the end of 1962, all as the snows of yesteryear within 6 months of that date.  That left the D95xx, the last gasp of the hydraulic drain circling corpse, delayed by the bay blockers at Swindon and introduced after it's work had disappeared; despite an emerging need for a road switcher to avoid the problems of slow running 08s blocking main lines with trips and transfers, it made no difference and the NTP went for improved Clayton Type 1s instead, another busted flush and new D83xx series 20s were still being delivered afterwards, a response to the now developing MGR game.

 

In my scenario, the 47s became the go to Type 4 between '62 and '65 because it was available, now, and this was as a result of continuing new orders after the initial WR batch had kept the line going.  Had this not happend, I reckon the 47s would have occupied the same niche on the ECML as the 50s did in '66 on the WCML, and no more would have been built, but the need for a 2,5k+ Type 4 was still there, not fully satisfied by any of the contenders.

 

All that said and depite their problems, the 47s have been a good go anywhere do anything (tolerably well) workhorse for many years, and are still plugging away in some cases, pushing 60 years old. 

[MidlandRed]

Significant batches of class 47s allocated to both the LMR and ER were put to work on early MGR trains and were basically heavy freight locos - I’m not sure where that motive power would have come from without class 47s - similarly use on Freightliner services, ECML and GER express passenger. 
 

The WR motive power position is quite curious - batches of the D95xx along with class 43 Warships were amongst the first locos put up as surplus in the early NTP, by the WR - resulting in the transfer of many D95xx to Hull in 1966/7. The 43s seem to have migrated to the Birmingham/ Paddington services for a while (some were temporarily allocated to the LMR but ultimately responsibility for their maintenance remained with OOC - during that period they were a regular sight at Bescot and Tyseley). In reality the WR also lost batches of class 37s to the ScR in 1966, and class 116 DMUs - this was no doubt the result of changing (reducing) traffic patterns but one can’t help wondering whether the volumes of traction required had been over estimated. 

Edited October 31, 2021 by MidlandRed

[Rugd1022]

Re the 50s being transferred from the LMR to the WR, when 400 was sent down from Crewe to Bristol Bath Road in October '72 there was much scratching of heads for many months until all of the staff were trained on it, largely due to the (at the time) complicated electrical systems within. It took a long while for these newcomers from up north to be anywhere near reliable with availability often down to 20% on any given day. 401 and 402 were sent to Old Oak for crew training shortly after arriving at Bath Road and they were not liked at all, to put it mildly. 403 soon followed and was often sidelined in the Pullman shed until someone arrived from Bristol to sort it out!

 

 

[rodent279]

According to Wikipedia (yes, I know ), 76 class 46's were ordered, but the last 20 were cancelled, and the equipment used in the first 20 class 47's. That perhaps implies that the design was considered outdated, and that something lighter was possible.

[slilley]

25 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

According to Wikipedia (yes, I know ), 76 class 46's were ordered, but the last 20 were cancelled, and the equipment used in the first 20 class 47's. That perhaps implies that the design was considered outdated, and that something lighter was possible.

That is exactly what happened. At a meeting of the BTC's Works & Equipment Committee on 7 Feb 1961 JF Harrison the CME said that building Peaks no longer represented value for money. The design had been superseded by the new Type 4  specification, and with keen competition amongst manufacturers, locomotives of higher power could be built more cheaply. That meeting cancelled the order for the last 20 Peaks and the electrical equipment would be modified and used in the new locomotives.

 

It is all set out in Class 47 50 Years of Locomotive History. A copy currently for sale on ebay. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/403257821941?_trkparms=amclksrc%3DITM%26aid%3D111001%26algo%3DREC.SEED%26ao%3D6%26asc%3D20140905073823%26meid%3D8d4400204433433ba3f58526449d56b2%26pid%3D100284%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D6%26sd%3D403257821941%26itm%3D403257821941%26pmt%3D0%26noa%3D1%26pg%3D2508447&_trksid=p2508447.c100284.m3505