Train Heating

[DY444]

Just now, kevinlms said:

No other Type 2 had ETH except for the Class 27/2, which hardly count because they had a separate diesel engine for the ETH, so that was no drain on the available traction power.

But yes, Class 30/31 appear to be Type 3's which of course is wrong.

 

Only if you believe the first digit of the class number gives you the type.  Class 50s, Westerns and Falcon rather blew that theory up.

[kevinlms]

1 minute ago, DY444 said:

 

Only if you believe the first digit of the class number gives you the type.  Class 50s, Westerns and Falcon rather blew that theory up.

Who said that I believe that? Fact is there were too many different classes in some of the various groups for the first digit to determine much relevance to anything.

[br2975]

Once upon a time, a man asked a simple question;

.

"..How common was it for a loco without train heating, or train heating compatible with the coaching stock forming the train, to be used on passenger trains during TOPS era?.."

.

 

Edited July 31, 2022 by br2975

[DY444]

5 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

Who said that I believe that? Fact is there were too many different classes in some of the various groups for the first digit to determine much relevance to anything.

 

I didn't mean you personally believed it.

 

You said "Class 30/31 appear to be Type 3's which of course is wrong"

 

Perhaps this would suit you better:  They only appear to be Type 3s to someone who believes the first digit of the class number gives you the type.  Class 50s, Westerns and Falcon rather blew that theory up.

Edited July 31, 2022 by DY444

[DY444]

3 minutes ago, br2975 said:

Once upon a time, a man asked a simple question;

.

"..How common was it for a loco without train heating, or train heating compatible with the coaching stock forming the train, to be used on passenger trains during TOPS era?.."

.

 

 

which has been answered

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Titan said:

People seem to forget that class 31s are type 2s  and don't judge accordingly.  Next time you feel the need to moan about their performance why not why not reflect on how many type 2s have more power than a class 31?

Although of course 1470hp is only 30 hp less than Type 3 category and I would - from riding on both in everyday traffic put the re-engined Brush way behind a BRCW Type 3 which only had an extra 80hp.  However the BRCW design did have the advantage of being 30 tons lighter.   And 2 x 1470 hp in multiple is 200hp+  more than any BR Type 4 could then muster (albeit also for a heck of a lot more loco weight).

 

And, lest we forget some of the Brush 'Type 2s' were actually 1,600hp Type 3s at one time.  Alas it was not at all easy to forget that the Brush locos were Type 2s because they simply didn't have the capability of any Type 3 I ever rode on or used in traffic.  So they were good short distance coaching stock pilots, not too bad on very light passenger trains, but simply not up to the job when worked in multiple on decent passenger train loads of ten or so coaches, and next to useless when working freight traffic up steep gradients when rail conditions were very poor.

[MidlandRed]

39 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Although of course 1470hp is only 30 hp less than Type 3 category and I would - from riding on both in everyday traffic put the re-engined Brush way behind a BRCW Type 3 which only had an extra 80hp.  However the BRCW design did have the advantage of being 30 tons lighter.   And 2 x 1470 hp in multiple is 200hp+  more than any BR Type 4 could then muster (albeit also for a heck of a lot more loco weight).

 

And, lest we forget some of the Brush 'Type 2s' were actually 1,600hp Type 3s at one time.  Alas it was not at all easy to forget that the Brush locos were Type 2s because they simply didn't have the capability of any Type 3 I ever rode on or used in traffic.  So they were good short distance coaching stock pilots, not too bad on very light passenger trains, but simply not up to the job when worked in multiple on decent passenger train loads of ten or so coaches, and next to useless when working freight traffic up steep gradients when rail conditions were very poor.

Im not sure everyone would agree with your assessment of the abilities of the class 31, @The Stationmaster - I think the WR was rather spoiled with the volume of type 3 locos it acquired (nearly 300 initially) and Type 4s (over 300 initially), whereas it’s type 2 and type 1 fleet numbered 58 and 56 respectively (it didn’t ‘get away with’ its desired 300 type 1s - and subsequent fleet managers no doubt breathed a sign of relief, even if Swindon lamented the chance to build them). 
 

However use of class 30/31 on the ER, for which they were built and predominantly worked over their first decade of use included the train types you think they’re not suitable for - in fact were a backbone of the ER fleet. I recall them in use on 8 or 10 coach Norwich to Birmingham trains in the mid 60s, without problem. 
 

It is a similar story with the class 25, which did great work around the country but are not remembered with much love when used on the WR.

 

My thought is these locos were compared with 1700 hp plus Hymeks and class 37, which is obviously not a fair comparison and one wonders why WRs motive power and services were so organised they couldn’t do with less than 1700 hp - after all, the class 22 was just about a type 2 (and thus easily surpassed by a class 25); agreed a 31 is not a Hymek or 37, but why would you expect it to be - surely dropping a couple of wagons would even things up? And in any case, WR still claimed to need 300 type 1s as late as 1963 - the transferred type 2s and the offer of class 20s (never taken up) would surely have covered this. 
 

I know hindsight is very helpful and times were changing daily, but one can’t get past the feeling the WR motive power planning was somewhat awry (to put it mildly) in those days, five decades ago! I’m sure classes 25 and 31 had their plusses and minuses but I would be a little cautious of a view on their use on the WR, where clearly motive power and traction was largely based on a rather different formula from the indigenous stomping grounds of the classes. The WR was somewhat wedded to its hydraulics and although they had their benefits (when working), comparison against cast offs from other regions brought in to replace the hydraulics may result in a somewhat jaundiced view (note class 50 also). 

Edited July 31, 2022 by MidlandRed

[45125]

52 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Although of course 1470hp is only 30 hp less than Type 3 category and I would - from riding on both in everyday traffic put the re-engined Brush way behind a BRCW Type 3 which only had an extra 80hp.  However the BRCW design did have the advantage of being 30 tons lighter.   And 2 x 1470 hp in multiple is 200hp+  more than any BR Type 4 could then muster (albeit also for a heck of a lot more loco weight).

 

And, lest we forget some of the Brush 'Type 2s' were actually 1,600hp Type 3s at one time.  Alas it was not at all easy to forget that the Brush locos were Type 2s because they simply didn't have the capability of any Type 3 I ever rode on or used in traffic.  So they were good short distance coaching stock pilots, not too bad on very light passenger trains, but simply not up to the job when worked in multiple on decent passenger train loads of ten or so coaches, and next to useless when working freight traffic up steep gradients when rail conditions were very poor.

Having seen a 31/4 on a load bank it is quite surprising were the the traction power goes when the ETH is turned on.I know from the lads in the test house at Doncaster when the first 31/4 was tested, there was a big gasp from the control room when the ETH was turned on and a where the **** has the traction power gone. From memory something 520 HP would be removed from the traction power with ETH full load.

Edited July 31, 2022 by 45125

[roythebus1]

On 30/07/2022 at 11:07, The Stationmaster said:

The interesting thing about the Class 33s on the Salisbury -Exeter route was that irrespective of it being the heating season the ETH would be turned off when leaving most stations, but especially those where a rising gradient was in the offing, and when climbing certain banks, as this was the only way to keep time.  It was also the practice of some Drivers to turn it off when trying to regain lost time.

Perish the thought that drivers would do that. (pun also intended). We done that on my record-breaking run on a Deltic + 8 in 1978 as recorded on hereby Brushman47407 (or whatever number he used). No ETH certainly made Deltics go a bit faster. :)

 

I also rememebr about the same time, Easter maybe May bank holiday, KX to Leeds with a Welsh 47 on with Mk1 stock. My mate complained about the loco full of coal dust and as we tried to accelerate the engine compartment door would open by itself! The poor loco struggled to get to 75 all the way to Leeds. We were a bit late getting there which amended our "refreshment break" in the Leeds BRSA. No doubt the cabbits at Donny relished the sight of a Welsh 47 at Donny. It even had the slow-speed control IIRC.

 

 

[roythebus1]

6 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Although of course 1470hp is only 30 hp less than Type 3 category and I would - from riding on both in everyday traffic put the re-engined Brush way behind a BRCW Type 3 which only had an extra 80hp.  However the BRCW design did have the advantage of being 30 tons lighter.   And 2 x 1470 hp in multiple is 200hp+  more than any BR Type 4 could then muster (albeit also for a heck of a lot more loco weight).

 

And, lest we forget some of the Brush 'Type 2s' were actually 1,600hp Type 3s at one time.  Alas it was not at all easy to forget that the Brush locos were Type 2s because they simply didn't have the capability of any Type 3 I ever rode on or used in traffic.  So they were good short distance coaching stock pilots, not too bad on very light passenger trains, but simply not up to the job when worked in multiple on decent passenger train loads of ten or so coaches, and next to useless when working freight traffic up steep gradients when rail conditions were very poor.

From my experience working 31s out of KX, they were super locos for the local trains to and from Moorgate. Theyw ere also on the Cambridge buffet trains ad we had a couple of them up to 100mph leaving wood Green tunnel on the up main with 8 on. As for going uphill with a freight, one Sunday engineering works at KX we had a 31 and about 800 tons of spent ballast to get rid of. It was a drizzle day and my mate Ron Birch took it out of the Cross. Luckily we had a dry rail in the tunnel and got up to about 15mph at the end of Copenhagen tunnel, from wher eit got slower and slower and we came to a stand. Several attempts to get going wasn't helped by the sanders not working, so we used tea can lids to put sand on the rails. Also to no avail. eventually we declared a state of f***it and our relief turned up. :) I twas their problem, not ours by then. 

But we had them on odd early morning trains to Donny and they kept time, no problems.

[br2975]

5 hours ago, MidlandRed said:

The WR was somewhat wedded to its hydraulics and although they had their benefits (when working), comparison against cast offs from other regions brought in to replace the hydraulics may result in a somewhat jaundiced view (note class 50 also). 

 

Forgetting the grossly underpowered Cl.31s.

.

Like 'flashovers' on the South Wales Cl.25s, which required 'mix-n-matching' the locos.

.

Or the delights of 'electro-pneumatic brakes' on the batch of Cl.37s sent from Healey Mills to Canton, for Western Valleys work, in May 1971.

.

The arrival of Cl.33s for the Severn - Solent, West Wales and North & West axes was probably one of the few decent transfers that didn't need any great work.

Edited July 31, 2022 by br2975

[jjb1970]

As an enthusiast I quite like the class 31 and look forward to the Accurascale model, but they were a lot of weight for not a lot of power. The ETH fitted machines may have been intended for ECS movements but they were also used on regular passenger services where the power take off for ETH was a large percentage of prime mover power. 

[kevinlms]

42 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

As an enthusiast I quite like the class 31 and look forward to the Accurascale model, but they were a lot of weight for not a lot of power. The ETH fitted machines may have been intended for ECS movements but they were also used on regular passenger services where the power take off for ETH was a large percentage of prime mover power. 

70 of them seems to be a lot for ECS duties! I suspect it was a case of using them on services where they weren't really intended for.

[rodent279]

5 hours ago, kevinlms said:

70 of them seems to be a lot for ECS duties! I suspect it was a case of using them on services where they weren't really intended for.

I suspect that 31/4 + lhcs cascaded from mainline services was seen as a cheap & easy stopgap for replacing worn out DMU's on longer distance secondary routes, such as Birmingham-Norwich & Liverpool-Hull.

[The Stationmaster]

19 hours ago, MidlandRed said:

Im not sure everyone would agree with your assessment of the abilities of the class 31, @The Stationmaster - I think the WR was rather spoiled with the volume of type 3 locos it acquired (nearly 300 initially) and Type 4s (over 300 initially), whereas it’s type 2 and type 1 fleet numbered 58 and 56 respectively (it didn’t ‘get away with’ its desired 300 type 1s - and subsequent fleet managers no doubt breathed a sign of relief, even if Swindon lamented the chance to build them). 
 

However use of class 30/31 on the ER, for which they were built and predominantly worked over their first decade of use included the train types you think they’re not suitable for - in fact were a backbone of the ER fleet. I recall them in use on 8 or 10 coach Norwich to Birmingham trains in the mid 60s, without problem. 
 

It is a similar story with the class 25, which did great work around the country but are not remembered with much love when used on the WR.

 

My thought is these locos were compared with 1700 hp plus Hymeks and class 37, which is obviously not a fair comparison and one wonders why WRs motive power and services were so organised they couldn’t do with less than 1700 hp - after all, the class 22 was just about a type 2 (and thus easily surpassed by a class 25); agreed a 31 is not a Hymek or 37, but why would you expect it to be - surely dropping a couple of wagons would even things up? And in any case, WR still claimed to need 300 type 1s as late as 1963 - the transferred type 2s and the offer of class 20s (never taken up) would surely have covered this. 
 

I know hindsight is very helpful and times were changing daily, but one can’t get past the feeling the WR motive power planning was somewhat awry (to put it mildly) in those days, five decades ago! I’m sure classes 25 and 31 had their plusses and minuses but I would be a little cautious of a view on their use on the WR, where clearly motive power and traction was largely based on a rather different formula from the indigenous stomping grounds of the classes. The WR was somewhat wedded to its hydraulics and although they had their benefits (when working), comparison against cast offs from other regions brought in to replace the hydraulics may result in a somewhat jaundiced view (note class 50 also). 

Maybe there's a difference between having to work with things everyday on a real railway trying to get the job done with the tools available than reading about it in books?   On Paddington ECS work they replaced Type 2 diesel hydraulics witha much lower horsepower engine, on some work they replaced Tyoe 3 diesel hydraulics and obviously weren't going to be as capable but on occasion there was no choice but to use then in pairs on what was booked Type 4 work and the simple fact is that they couldn't manage it.  

 

I had to deal with facts and one of those facts is that in some of the work we had to use them on the Type 3s had long gone so I saw what we were faced with every day without any memory of how the Type 3s had handled the job..   And all we could do to shift certain traffic was use a large Type 4 instead of one of them - hence we officially lost our Type 2 diagrams for the very simple reason that they couldn't even manage what they were theoretically supposed to be able to do according to the Loads Book.  And that is really what it's all about.  I don't think it is in any way unrealistic for a railway operator to expect a loco to reliably do what it is meant to do and that was where the 25s fell down on some of our freight work and the 31s also failed to deliver on more taxing work.

 

It terms of managing an everyday railway I didn't care how the mechanicals or electrics of anything was arranged provided it delivered the results that it was meant to deliver.  As I've already mentioned for an extra 80 hp of engine horsepower than the re-engined 31 the SR Cromptons (as we called them) - D65XX/Class 33 did not only exactly what it said on the tin but were capable of even more on freight work  without being thrashed.  And exactly the same could be said of the EE Type 3/Class 37 where I only once had occasion to question the performance they were delivering with a booked load and were a type I sought out for particular jobs whenever possible.

Edited August 1, 2022 by The Stationmaster

[MidlandRed]

19 hours ago, 45125 said:

Having seen a 31/4 on a load bank it is quite surprising were the the traction power goes when the ETH is turned on.I know from the lads in the test house at Doncaster when the first 31/4 was tested, there was a big gasp from the control room when the ETH was turned on and a where the **** has the traction power gone. From memory something 520 HP would be removed from the traction power with ETH full load.

So effectively, the 31 would be reduced to a Type 1 classification - similar to a single class 20 - surprising, really - however still suitable for short passenger trains? 

[45125]

15 minutes ago, MidlandRed said:

So effectively, the 31 would be reduced to a Type 1 classification - similar to a single class 20 - surprising, really - however still suitable for short passenger trains? 

What you have to remember ETH loadings are not generally constant, it will very with the stock concerned as heating/air con loading alter. Mk1s usually have a more constant loading due to the thermostats used and the fact the have passenger operated controls.

 

Al Taylor.

[MidlandRed]

51 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Maybe there's a difference between having to work with things everyday on a real railway trying to get the job done with the tools available than reading about it in books?   On Paddington ECS work they replaced Type 2 diesel hydraulics witha much lower horsepower engine, on some work they replaced Tyoe 3 diesel hydraulics and obviously weren't going to be as capable but on occasion there was no choice but to use then in pairs on what was booked Type 4 work and the simple fact is that they couldn't manage it.  

 

I had to deal with facts and one of those facts is that in some of the work we had to use them on the Type 3s had long gone so I saw what we were faced with every day without any memory of how the Type 3s had handled the job..   And all we could do to shift certain traffic was use a large Type 4 instead of one of them - hence we officially lost our Type 2 diagrams for the very simple reason that they couldn't even manage what they were theoretically supposed to be able to do according to the Loads Book.  And that is really what it's all about.  I don't think it is in any way unrealistic for a railway operator to expect a loco to reliably do what it is meant to do and that was where the 25s fell down on some of our freight work and the 31s also failed to deliver on more taxing work.

 

It terms of managing an everyday railway I didn't care how the mechanicals or electrics of anything was arranged provided it delivered the results that it was meant to deliver.  As I've already mentioned for an extra 80 hp of engine horsepower than the re-engined 31 the SR Cromptons (as we called them) - D65XX/Class 33 did not only exactly what it said on the tin but were capable of even more on freight work  without being thrashed.  And exactly the same could be said of the EE Type 3/Class 37 where I only once had occasion to question the performance they were delivering with a booked load and were a type I sought out for particular jobs whenever possible.

I get your dilemma, @The Stationmaster - I wasn’t basing my thoughts on what I’d read in books, more of a knowledge of how the class 25 was used and performed, say on the LM Region, and the 30/31 on the Eastern. I don’t recall the services, freight and passenger, they operated suffering from gross unreliability or even any particular unreliability - the class 50 is another case in point - the mainstay of Crewe to Scotland passenger services from new until electrification and again, I don’t recall particular unreliability. 
 

I suppose there are several differences here:-

 

1) the locos were new in those environments - they were significantly older (possibly relatively thrashed in the case of the 50s, having been used day to day with heavy loads over the gradients of Shap and Beattock) when transferred.

2) the maintainers on the WR had to learn these locos, it seems from a standing start, as did the drivers. Whilst those on the LMR and ER were also starting from scratch, this was new traction so there was a lot of training to get up to speed.

3) the locos were largely steam replacement on the ER and LM (although i suspect the last few 25s replaced CoBos from new) - the WR had replaced their steam by 1965, so the cascaded traction was imposed on an already dieselised region - and appears to have not entirely fitted the type 3 and type 4 regime which had been adopted on the WR (possibly uniquely when compared with the national system - although in some respects it matched subsequent nationwide Policy). 
 

But I still find it hard to reconcile some of the comments I have heard about these locos on the WR when compared to their regions of origin. As has been said earlier in this thread, were the locos used appropriately, and added to that, were they in need of overhaul, and did the maintainers have sufficient training to deal with them effectively? 
 

I suspect the answer and reasons are a lot more complex than simply the locos were not fit for purpose (they clearly were fit for purpose as they had previously functioned satisfactorily and in some usages, very well on their home regions). That they created a problem for planners and operators on the WR is not disputed. How much of the problem was self inflicted owing to deeply entrenched regional preconceptions, practices and attitudes across the organisation is questionable. 

Edited August 1, 2022 by MidlandRed

[Titan]

Not only that, but the estimates of ETH loads seem to have gone up dramatically.  When Deltics were converted to ETH, it was reckoned that ETH would take up to 300bhp max for an 11 coach mk2d train, and yet now apparently it takes a minimum of over 400bhp for a class 31 to heat 8...

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, MidlandRed said:

I get your dilemma, @The Stationmaster - I wasn’t basing my thoughts on what I’d read in books, more of a knowledge of how the class 25 was used and performed, say on the LM Region, and the 30/31 on the Eastern. I don’t recall the services, freight and passenger, they operated suffering from gross unreliability or even any particular unreliability - the class 50 is another case in point - the mainstay of Crewe to Scotland passenger services from new until electrification and again, I don’t recall particular unreliability. 
 

I suppose there are several differences here:-

 

1) the locos were new in those environments - they were significantly older (possibly relatively thrashed in the case of the 50s, having been used day to day with heavy loads over the gradients of Shap and Beattock) when transferred.

2) the maintainers on the WR had to learn these locos, it seems from a standing start, as did the drivers. Whilst those on the LMR and ER were also starting from scratch, this was new traction so there was a lot of training to get up to speed.

3) the locos were largely steam replacement on the ER and LM (although i suspect the last few 25s replaced CoBos from new) - the WR had replaced their steam by 1965, so the cascaded traction was imposed on an already dieselised region - and appears to have not entirely fitted the type 3 and type 4 regime which had been adopted on the WR (possibly uniquely when compared with the national system - although in some respects it matched subsequent nationwide Policy). 
 

But I still find it hard to reconcile some of the comments I have heard about these locos on the WR when compared to their regions of origin. As has been said earlier in this thread, were the locos used appropriately, and added to that, were they in need of overhaul, and did the maintainers have sufficient training to deal with them effectively? 
 

I suspect the answer and reasons are a lot more complex than simply the locos were not fit for purpose (they clearly were fit for purpose as they had previously functioned satisfactorily and in some usages, very well on their home regions). That they created a problem for planners and operators on the WR is not disputed. How much of the problem was self inflicted owing to deeply entrenched regional preconceptions, practices and attitudes across the organisation is questionable. 

The 50s had various reliability problems from Day 1 and availability on the LMR was very bad at times.  The 24s and to a slightly lesser extent their final Class 25 successors suffered from a number of design defects which probably ultimately contributed to their relatively early withdrawal.

 

 

As for their hitting trouble on the WR there were a variety of reasons.  Firstly as far as the 50s were concerned they had simply got worse and worse as they aged and there was little incentive to do anything about that as they were going to be displaced by electrification.  Hence what arrived on the WR was a very unreliable loco - on their first full Summer Saturday on the West of England we took 16 (sixteen) failed 50s off trains where I worked over the course of the day although fortunately by mid afternoon some of the earliest failures were suffiiciently cooled down and self-restored to put them back out on a wing and a prayer (we had used up our entire stock of Type 4s and had even had extras drafted in).  Once they had been sorted the 50s became much more reliable but it took time and money to turn them into a consistently reliable class.  BTW most of their problems were down to over complexity of specification and the design and equipment needed to meet that specification; their electronics were always unreliable and got even worse as they aged.

 

On my experience with them the 25s simply couldn't handle the freight loads they were officially capable of handling even on relatively good rail conditions on steep gradients, they were near useless in bad rail conditions.  That particular job would have taxed any loco - although apparently Hymeks had managed to cope quite well (but effectively they had what amounted to 8 coupled wheels).  So the 25s were transferred away and of course were overtaken by the increasing surplus of EEType3/Class 37s although we in fact replaced them on that particular job with a Class 46.

 

The Brush Type 4/Class47 had been a mass of trouble in their early years and were the subject of numerous experiments and modifications but gradually they became fairly reliable although they always had a major shortcoming when it came to some freight work due to their lack of sanders.  But good 'un was pleasure on fast passenger work after they had been sorted and had ceased setting fire to their brake blocks.

 

The 31 was an interesting compromise.  The original design was very heavy for its original power output, and the re-engined version was hobbled by reduced engine hp (which no doubt boosted reliability) in order to use the original electrics and traction motors. Undoubtedly their Achilles heal was being very much overweight which hampered their performance.  It's great pity that BR favoured Brush - for whatever reason - over some far more effective BRCW designs (and it can be reasonably said that exactly the same thing happened with the choice of the Brush design as the standard' Type 4 instead of the BRCW design.

 

But it always comes back to locos not being capable of what they were meant to be capable of.  And their capability was not decided by the WR but was calculated at Derby by the Train Performance Section (with whom I worked very closely on various projects in the late 1980s/early '90s particularly on Class 59 trials on very heavy trains).   So I don't think the Western was particularly hidebound by what had gone before and lots of people were very glad to see the back of anything which had been built by North British a lot of which had been a bundle of trouble from the moment it arrived.

 

Equally we knew our traffic and we knew what sort of railway we had to work it over - irrespective of where it had come from.  Some of our jobs no doubt did 'stretch' the machines we were using but we didn't abuse them and we didn't look to use them beyond their limits.   In fact at various times we would have been overjoyed if we had been able to actually use them within their limits and have them do what they were supposed to do.   It was far cheaper and quicker to work a train in one piece rather than have to split it into three separate pieces because the loco couldn't shift anything like the tonnage it was officially capable of shifting.

 

Incidentally looking from beyond the fence you only observe what you actually see.  What you don't see is what went on to give you that sight - like my 16 failed 50s that Saturday. when what you'd have seen was probably a very grubby 1000 or an equally grubby 47 on a late running train.

[roythebus1]

On the work from KX the 31s did actually do a lot of ECS wor as they were the mainstay of the lower-powered loco fleet! We had the main line fleet, Deltics, Brush 4s, sometimes a 40/45/46 would visit, but KX men weren't generally trained on anything else!

The Cambridge buffet and other services were Mk1 stock with steam heat, as were most of the other secondary trains like the silly'o'clock to donny on a Saturday morning, the sleeper trains and odd stock. 31s with ETH were usually found on the station pilot duties as they could be utilised for a failed mainline loco if there was nothing else around.

[DY444]

I think the 50s are a text book example of how not to design a locomotive and a real world example of Roger Ford's Informed Sources law about any changes made from the prototype will be for the worse.  Everyone talks about the electronics but there was far more to it than that - the oil throwing engine, the air filtration system, the flimsy main generator, the change away from a previously proven traction motor commutator design and so on.  The oil throwing in particular made some of the other issues (eg the electronics) worse than they might otherwise have been.

 

Wrt train heating it also suffered the same problem as earlier BR diesels built with eth in that it didn't anticipate the future demands that air con stock would impose.  The eth generator was thus somewhat under nourished for air con rakes and there is an argument that the eth index for the class probably should have been lower than 61.  Indeed in recognition of this there were special procedures laid down for managing the eth supply in the winter months when supplying a rake of stock with an eth index of over 48 if the stock had been standing with no supply for more than a specified period.

Edited August 4, 2022 by DY444