Hymeks on Expresses?

[Rivercider]

3 hours ago, GWRSwindon said:

What was the reason air braking couldn't be fitted to the Hymeks? 

 

I've also read that D1200 Falcon could not be dual-fitted.

Lack of interior space in the Hymeks left no room to fit air brake equipment. Lack of interior space was common to all the hydraulic classes I believe, when the Westerns were fitted with air brakes one of the fuel tanks was removed to make room for the Westinghouse compressor,

 

cheers 

Edited October 11, 2023 by Rivercider
tidying up.

[The Johnster]

That's about the size of it (sorry); the WR hydraulic design philosophy was to go for the best power/weight ratio attainable, and there was not much room for retrofits.  Diesel-electrics had to be bigger and heavier in order to accommodate the massive generator needed (or two of them if it was a Deltic).  This meant that there was more likely to be space for train air brake equipment (compressor, valve, electrical control boxes, and the pipework).  A decision was taken at Board level in the early 70s to reduce the number of classes in service and to standardise on train air brakes, eth, and electric transmission.  The Warships and Baby Warships were first to go, followed by the Hymeks.  Westerns survived a little longer, having room aboard for train air brakes but failing to make the cut on account of not being able to supply eth (not sure that any hydraulic could have been configured to do this in the 70s). 

 

Some diesel-electric classes were considered non-standard as well by virtue of low class numbers which often with poor availability scores as well; classes 15, 16, 17, 21, 23, and 28 come into this category as did any shunting types other than 08/9, 13, and 03.  Class 14 was extinct in BR service by that time any way.  Some 21s were rebuilt with new engines as 29s

[Mike Buckner]

 

Diesel Hydraulic locos could be shorter and lighter than Diesel Electrics.
The class 21 (Diesel Electric) had a length of 51' 6", for a weight of 72.5 tons.
The class 22 (Diesel Hydraulic) had a length of 46' 8.5", for a weight of 65 tons (68 tons for early locos).
These locos being built by the same manufacturer with the same diesel engines, in highly similar bodies, one shorter than the other.
 

 

[The Stationmaster]

14 hours ago, Rivercider said:

Lack of interior space in the Hymeks left no room to fit air brake equipment. Lack of interior space was common to all the hydraulic classes I believe, when the Westerns were fitted with air brakes one of the fuel tanks was removed to make room for the Westinghouse compressor,

 

cheers 

It took Swindon a very long time to convert teh first 1000 to dual brake.  A Hymel could have been fitted but it would probably have needed the boiler to be removed in order to do it - not much use when trains were steam heated.

[The Stationmaster]

On 10/10/2023 at 01:22, Matt37268 said:

Not exactly used over 10 bogies but with 7076 being used on the 3 coach local set at the SVR last weekend, my Dad said it was very reminiscent of the portion of the Worcester/Hereford expresses, to/from Padd.

I’m sure @The Johnster has a bit more technical knowledge than myself but I’m sure he’s mentioned that those that  were used to to replace the Castles on the expresses from South Wales way back in the early 1960’s and were flogged weren’t exactly in the best of health later on in their lives. 
7076 was absolutely awesome the other weekend though 😜

The ones used on teh South wales trains due to delayed 1000 deliveries were definitely hammered.  But that would have been the engines and transmissions and as those components went back into the pool at major overhaiuls  they - especially transmissions - could gfinish up on any membrrer of the class.

 

The biggest problem the class  seemed to suffer from was associated with the gear box and in 1963 half of them had 2nd ger ar locked while the other half had the engine derated to 1650hp to reduce the strain on the gearbox.   The only time I was on a Hymek which failed on traffic was due to the gearbox when it wouldn't change from 1st to 2nd gear.  The Driver tried, equally unsuccessfully, to change gear by hand but had to fail the loco.  Subsequently put down to an EP valve defect I seem to remember.  The 1650hp ones were still quite sprightly.  

 

They were massively better riding than a Brush Type 4.  There used to be a nasty biyt of transition and reverse cant in the Up Main crossover facing lead at Friars  Jcn and the Hymeks barely noticed it.  But on a Brush you literally felt the thing starting to go down to one side and I always seriously began to wonder if it would ever come back up  (although they always did).  Unable to compare it with a 'Warship' as I only went past there once in the cab and we were on the Up Relief, never on  1000 and once on the Blue Pullman but that was after the Civils had sorted it (by removing the crossover).  The Brush 4s were perfectly ok after that.

[MPR]

So, should the Hymeks have been kept in service and refurbished / upgraded in the 1970s?

What would a "Hymek 2" have looked like?

(National Traction Plan / B-P closing down being ignored for this question)

[The Border Reiver]

Here is D7039 on 1F49 with 6 coaches at Cardiff General station. I took this in the summer of 1966

 

Edited October 12, 2023 by The Border Reiver
Typeo... Wrong loco number

[Miss Prism]

Nice pic!

[kevinlms]

21 hours ago, The Johnster said:

I liked the big, warm, quiet, comfortable cab and the superb ride, but they were a waste of time in other respects.  Their use on the WR as replacements for the pocket-rocket Hymeks (anyone who has watched a 'mek dig in and lift 900tons plus up the precipitous climb out of Aberthaw Cement Works will have enormous respect for the design) was never going to make them friends; it was basically replacing a good type 3 with an indifferent type 2.  The Hymeks were scrapped because of a policy decision, but had little future anyway as air brake equipment could not be fitted to them; it was my view that there was enough vacuum work to keep them on for another five years, but my view didn't count.

35 to 31. Almost no difference, because there was only one loco class inbetween and 2 gaps!

 

😇

[MidlandRed]

I recall the Hymeks being used to dieselise Paddington-Worcester/ Hereford - there was an article in Railway Magazine at the time - they replaced 7P rated Castles. I don’t know if the load was reduced but if not, this would surely have stretched their abilities. I don’t remember the exact details, or whether there was any intermediate operation, but these services were operated by class 43 Warships (Type 4) in the latter part of the 60s along with Brush Type 4s. 
 

The north and west route was variously operated by brand new Brush type 4s (1964 on) and also Warship class (once again type 4) - presumably until the service was derated to DMUs (although the class 123Inter City Units appeared at one time). 
 

The Hymeks were also used on the Cardiff/Bristol/Portsmouth route at one time (another one where class 123 DMUs operated when fairly new). 
 

I always thought the class 25s and 31s were given a tough ride by the WR - the 25s were used on duties requiring class 8 or higher steam power in the Peak District, so I’m astonished the WR couldn’t operate them effectively with four coaches (replacing three DMU power cars, effectively) or four GUVs!! I was never sure whether this was caused by operator fallibilities, allocated to unsuitable duties at times, not invented here syndrome, the locos being worn out when acquired by the WR (many were over 10 yrs old when sent although Newport received several of the newest, 5 yr old models, some of which had been used at one time on ex Co Bo duties around Carlisle), worse than not invented here syndrome, invented by Derby syndrome, or simply that the rarified air in the south west and Wales was only suitable for locos of Churchward parentage, or designed and built by Swindon or North British!! Whatever - I think they got a rough ride on the WR where others (basically everyone else) seemed to get good work out of them. I remember seeing the first little group of class 31s sent to OOC at the end of the 60s, and mighty smart they looked too, compared to the squat class 22s, some of which seemed to suffer from WR coach washer paint strip and bits of valances missing - the operators must have relished those 1470 horses compared to the 1100 odd of the class 22. As interested observers, we certainly loved both of the classes but I’d guess the passengers thought the 31s looked better at Paddington’s buffer stops - excepting the handful of overhauled 22s, which looked smart for a while. 
 

To answer those questions about retention of Hymeks, they certainly seemed to be successful and modern looking locos. However the fact is BR had far too many locos by the late 60s so it was clear a reduction would occur - starting with the most unsuccessful and troublesome classes - followed by a period of standardisation (removing non standard classes). The WR had a surfeit of type 3s (and type 4s) - at one time around 300 of each. Imagine if their plans had come to fruition there’d have been 400 type 1s as well (curtailed at 56 class 14s). This logic seems to have been based on replacing steam duties on an exact basis (I recall reading 2 out, 1 in for the earlier WR dieselisation schemes) - Beeching and the NTP (national traction planning as opposed to regional planning) put paid to all of this. The WCML effect should not be underestimated as well - when fully on stream in 1967 along with converting most freight and all passenger services to electric haulage, large amounts of diesel power were released. 

Edited October 13, 2023 by MidlandRed
Corrections (Inter City DMUs class 123, not 124)

[The Johnster]

There is no doubt that Swindon's thinking was influenced by pre-Nationalisation locomotive policy and the rush to rid the region of steam, backward and forward looking simultaneously.  The critical decisions were taken between 1955, the modernisation Plan, and 1963, Beeching, and the action concentrated into the five years between the introduction of the Warships in 1958 and Beeching, by which time the hydraulic experiment was pretty much dead in the water.  Don't forget the flawed Rugby data had underestimated what would be required to replace steam by around 25%.

 

The Warships were intended to replace Castles, and a Warship in good condition could do Castle work, but had to be thrashed, which meant it didn't stay in good condition for long.  It was recognised that they would need assistance west of Newton Abbot and this resulted in the 22s, which could also be used to replace small and large prairies on local work.  It was obvious by 1960 that the Warships were inadequate for heavy express work and a more powerful loco with more driving wheels was ordered, the Western, which started to relieve the burden in '61 despite teething troubles with cardan shafts.  Next job was to replace the various 5MTs, Halls, Granges, BR standards etc.  Lesser work was being done by dmus and the freight could be left to steam for now, actually Warships proved effective on fast fully-fitted freight and Westerns were superb mainline heavy mineral class 8 horses.  Hence the Hymek, which was effectively not far short of Warship performance, and a very effective loco as we have seen, but not suitable for South Wales expresses!

 

By this time the region was in trouble, and the ability to run the timetable was on the edge of collapse.  Warships were dropping like flies, delaying the delivery of Westerns and the upkeep of the remaining steam fleet by blocking bays at Swindon, Beyer-Peacock were circling the drain, and the policy of allocating diesels to sheds but requiring them to scrap three equivalant steam locos (because a diesel had 3x the availability and could thus do the work of three steam engines, in theory) meant that there were few steam engines in good enough condition to run expresses.  Bottom of the food chain was the new type 1 trip shunter, the 14, which was to replace the 94xx panniers.  Those in turn were a replacement for constituent/absorbed pre-grouping 0-6-2Ts scrapped in the 50s. 

 

Traffic was haemorraging (motorways, the Morris Minor and Ford Popular, minis in 1959, and the articulated lorry), and some significant closures took place before anyone on railwayy had even heard of Beeching; the Gwent Valleys passenger service, Newport-Brecon, and Brecon-Hereford/Moat Lane all gone by the end of 1962.  But the least loss of traffic was in the express passenger sector, and the problems were still apparent in '63 when Beeching hit like being smacked in the face with a dead mackeral.  This enabled a huge cull of smaller steam engines, but the express passenger problem was not solved until the insistence on hydraulics was abandoned.  This may have been precipitated by B-P's collapse, and the loss of 100 more Hymeks geared for South Wales Valleys mineral work to replace the 56xx.

 

The region now cast about for sources of immediately available type 3 and type 4 diesel-electric power, and were fortunate that EE were in a good position to supply them with as many 37s as they wanted quite quickly, and Brush were in a similar position vis a vis 47s.  And that was the beginning of The End for the hydraulics.  Delivery of 14s finally began in '64, by which time most of their BR work had disappeared, the last WR steam shed closed in August '65, and the last steam visits to the region were about a year later.  By 1972, there were lines of surplus 37s stored at Margam, some of which were used to power the shortly-to-be introduced triple-headed 2,700ton Port Talbot-Llanwern iron-ore tipplers, and others should IMHO have had steam-heating boilers restored and used to replace the 120/Bubble Car combos on the North-to-West.  But we got the useless 25s.  For some reason the WR never seemed to exploit the potential of 37s for passenger work; there were high-speed trials in '64, preparatory work for the HSTs, between Bristol and Paddington with double-headers running on borrowed fast-geared Deltic bogies, but no regular booked passenger duties for many more years.  The fixation with the idea of them as 56xx replacements at a time when 56xx passenger work was a thing of the (abeit recent) past meant that as far as the WR were concerned they were mineral haulers, a role they began to break out of as Hymek replacements in the 70s.  The ER, NER, and ScR all used them successfully on passenger work, but not the WR, yet...  47s quickly proved themselves capable of 7P and 9F work, but had to be derated by 100hp to maintain availability.  I'd put them up as a candidate for Britain's best-ever all-rounder, not exactly paragons but not much main line  work they couldn't make a fair stab at...

 

As to why the WR failed to get effective use out of the Derby type 2s, the jury's out and not expected back any time soon.  In 1968 I had a run behind one on a Liverpool Exchange-Preston that I'd hoped would be a Black 5, six on and a lively enough run; it could do what a Black 5 could even if it had to be hammered a bit, and of course I approve of hammering when I am wearing my enthusiast hat.  So I knew they could pull trains, it's just that they struggled on the Cardiff-Crewes.  These started off as six bogies to replace a pair of 120s with a bubble car booster, and were supposed to improve timekeeping on the route, which was, even in the most favourable light, dreadful.  They made it worse, so the loads were reduced coach by coach until it was down to three before the 25s could reliably time the trains.  The difference was the banks of course; one can hardly compare thrashing across the coastal plain of Lancashire to the switchback of the Welsh Marches line, but people who knew what they were doing, allegedly, had set the loads and the timings, and got it spectacularly wrong!  Loads went back up to 4 eth with 33s in the late 70s then airco with 37/4s a decade later; 33s reminded me a bit of Hymeks in terms of pocketrocketry and did some very nippy work on the WR with 4-coach loads, made nice noises doing it as well!

 

Engines started to be transferred in to the region as opposed to being built new bespoke for it in the late 60s, 25s to work double headed on the very heavy Newport Docks-Llanwern iron-ore drags, which they managed.  150tons with 2,500hp through eight driven axles at low speed being within what could reasonably be expected of them, so long as they got a run (if you can call 25mph a run) at the rise out of High Street station on to the river bridge; saw a pair stall here once.  These were joined by more 25s and 31s to replace Hymeks; I'm sorry Kevinlms, there is no comparison between a Hymek and a 31 in use in traffic on a daily basis, the Hymek is significicantly superior and a loco that was about the same size and exactly the same weight as a Western but about as effective as a Western on one engine wasn't going to make friends on the WR.  Then we got 50s to replace the Westerns (which couldn't be fitted with eth), and these were not initially successful having had the bejaysus ripped out of them on Shap and Beattock while the route was waiting for the OLE to appear and with electronic control issues that took a while to sort out.  Nobody's going to transfer their best locos and you'll always get the dregs, but should be able to get on top of them over time.  31s were not tried on the N2W, but seemed to cope with the Bristol-Weymouth 4-coach loads.

 

31s have survived, though, where 25s, 35s, and many others have fallen into the abyss of history.  They are still not much use, but are adaptable to different situations, and reliable if you don't thrash them.  With 20s, they are the only Modernisation Plan success story, and the last candidate I would have put forward for that honour sitting in the back cab of one struggling up to Tutshill Jc with a load of empty bogie bolsters in '74, 28mph at the top.  I was warm and comfy though, and it was lovely and quiet in there...

 

 

 

 

[Rivercider]

There are a number of photos on Flickr of Hymeks on expresses.

 

 

D7028 at Reading 27 July 1968 by snatmann

 

 

D7037 at Stoke Gifford with a Pembroke Dock to Paddington 3 June 1963 by John Whiteley

 

D7031 leaving Reading with a Weston-super-Mare to Paddington by Colin Alexander,

 

ALso this described as being at Weston-super-Mare though I do not recognise the scene.

D7046 departs with 12.35 SO Weston-super-Mare to Paddington, photo by late Colin Caddy,

 

cheers

 

[Covkid]

On 11/10/2023 at 08:55, D7063 said:

'Nippy' might be overegging it a bit, but I certainly remembered them keeping time on the occasions I had to use the transpennine!

 

 

On 11/10/2023 at 12:33, Matt37268 said:

Much as I do like Class 31’s ‘Nippy’ is never a word I’d use to describe them! 

Except in pairs.  IIRC Old Oak sometimes put out pairs of 31s on some of the Birminghams and they did pretty well, but they effectively were nearly 3000hp on eight traction motors !!

 

I also remember pairs on the summer Saturday Yarmouths and Skeggies which motored

[Covkid]

23 hours ago, Rivercider said:

Lack of interior space in the Hymeks left no room to fit air brake equipment. Lack of interior space was common to all the hydraulic classes I believe, when the Westerns were fitted with air brakes one of the fuel tanks was removed to make room for the Westinghouse compressor,

 

cheers 

Yes.  Remember talking to a hydraulic expert years ago and the space needed was a matter of a few more inches than could be accommodated. That was their undoing and why they were withdrawn relatively early. Don't forget that all regions were expected to provide dual braked traction. 

 

It is actually interesting to speculate what may have come to pass if BR had changed very quickly from vacuum to air braking. Could the hymeks have lost their vacuum exhausters and replaced with air - probably only a second compressor instead of two exhausters

[The Stationmaster]

I think the bog problem surrounding the use of the 25s and the 31s on the Western was basically taht they very often were replacing the more powerful Hymeks on many duties (Paddington coaching pilots aside).

 

If the Hymeks had been replaced by EE Type 3s the reaction would have been different.  having worked at place where 25s replaced Hymeks teh simple fact was that they were not up to the job.  Alright tootling along a main line but useless working over a difficult branch line with a severe gradient where they couldn't even manage their booked load on most days - and where in the end the local replacement for the 25 was a 46.  Completely different reaction when equally worn 37s arrived - immediately liked (albeit on different work from the Hymeks) because of their power and riding even tho' they tended to rattle a bit .  Similarly the Cromptons - as they were known to us; Class 33 to most people - were definitely not in the NIH category and were well liked and could do exactly what it said on the tin.  if they had replaced the Hymeks I doubt there would have been much moaning, if any.

 

so I don't think therew as any NIH or 'it's not from Swindon' attitides involved it was simply down to the replacements being less powerful than what they had replaced and not being as good at the job.  Incidentally as far as the 25s were concerned it is possible (albeit theoretically not so) that someone got rid f their less wonderful examples to the WR which might have made a dfference. We had 31s instead of Hymeks on the loco hauled Weymouth - relatively light loads but again the performance was no match for a Hymek.  

 

A few years later I had plenty of exerience with 31s substituting in pairs for Type4 s on Oxford - London commuter trains and they were distinctly dismal performers - lots of horsepower but lots of metal for it to drag around.  So they were slow away from stations sti ops - hence they were invariably losing time coming up the Thames Valley in the mornng (and similarly back down in the evening).  And between reading and paddington they had considerable difficulty keeping time.  As I've mentioned before there was no way on them that you needed to shut off or brake for the 85mph PRS at Acton because even running on full power they still couldn't get up to that speed..  Excellent coach pilots, alright on light passenger trains, but no replacement - even with the EE engine which almost got them to Type 3 rating -- for the way Hymeks had performed on similar trains (I had ridden on some of them in earlier years)  and well short of the booked Type 4 performance.

 

So really from what I saw and experienced any resentment against the 25s was very much down to performance and while I don't think there was any resentment ahainst the 31s they did not (and could not) perform as well as the more powerful Hymeks - even when two were coupled together!  But they were reliable.

[Rivercider]

 

 

 

As a child during the 1960s I lived in Exeter and although I now know that both Laira and Newton Abbot had an allocation of Hymeks at various times I do not remember regularly seeing them in Devon. My memories of visits to Exeter St Davids stabling point are of Warship class 42/43 and class 22s which carried out much of the local freight trip work in Devon and Cornwall. In 1970/71 the class 22s were replaced by class 25s for the local work, which they were designed for, and seemed to cover well enough. Likewise class 25s and 31s covered local freight work in the Bristol area once the 22s and Hymeks had gone, and they handled the traffic on offer.

I do have a few recollections of Hymeks at work in Devon, including to Ilfracombe, though that leg of the journey could hardly be described as express work. 

 

Here are a few more photos from Flickr Hymeks at work in the West Country.

 

 

At Plymouth D7003 has arrived with an inter-regional working on 22/3/62, photo by Kevin Whitehurst

 

At Dawlish Warren D7000 heads east with the 15.20 Plymouth to Sheffield on 01/05/69. Photo from KDH archive

 

Possibly at Burlescombe possibly D7012 heads east climbing towards Whiteball Tunnel. No date Photo by Richard,

 

I believe Hymeks were regular visitors to Minehead, particularly on summer Saturday services.

   

 

D7050 departs Minehead with a service for Paddington. No date. Photo by Anthony Guppy.

 

cheers

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Halvarras]

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Incidentally as far as the 25s were concerned it is possible (albeit theoretically not so) that someone got rid f their less wonderful examples to the WR which might have made a dfference. 

 

I believe that, judging from all those received by the WR still in green and early blue (D7675-7) liveries, to a very large extent this was true - and not only the 25s but 31s, and before them 46s as well. By early 1972 the WR had a large number of green Type 2s in circulation (and the last three green 46s) but they wasted no time in putting them all through works, such that two years later only one green 31 acquired a TOPS number, and for just two weeks! It must have cost the WR a small fortune but they probably took it on the chin because, let's be honest, retaining the best locos which had most likely been put through reasonably recent works overhauls at the home Region's expense was entirely understandable. For us WR enthusiasts though the sudden influx of green into a scene not long deprived of maroon and rapidly turning blue was a welcome if short-lived event - I recall it fondly!

The first five 31s to Old Oak Common to replace the 22s on Paddington empty stock workings were different of course, these arrived in ex-works condition following dual-braking for compatibility with the Mark 2a/b stock then entering service.

[br2975]

On 12/10/2023 at 16:50, MidlandRed said:

 

I always thought the class 25s and 31s were given a tough ride by the WR

 

worse than not invented here syndrome, invented by Derby syndrome, or simply that the rarified air in the south west and Wales was only suitable for locos of Churchward parentage, or designed and built by Swindon or North British!! Whatever -

 

.

.

The first tranche of Cl.25s to hit the Western were D5179-5182 & D7624/25 in October, 1970.

.

They were fitted with EQ brakes, of which the locals were allegedly highly suspicious.

.

Then eight former Western EE Type 3s that had earlier 'gone north' (a cardinal sin in South Wales at the time) returned from Healey Mills in May, 1971 also equipped with this (alleged) 'satanic device'

.

An attempt was made by 'upstairs' to keep all these locos for Eastern & Western valleys jobs off Ebbw Junction and Aberbeeg.

.

However, the new 'Welsh' Cl.25s working off Ebbw Junction developed a tendency to suffer flashovers, which resulted in much research, and then requirements for mixing and matching when double heading, which involved a lot of their freight jobs at the time i.e. iron ore from Port Talbot / Newport to Ebbw vale / Llanwern and coal trains between East Usk, Llanharan and Margam as well as in the Gwent Valleys.

.

Perhaps these (perceived ?) issues set a jaundiced view of the class, from which they never recovered ?

.

Certainly, the later use of Southern Cromptons (Cl.33) on cyclic duties from the South Coast to West Wales, then North Wales, and back again showed the 33s to be the pick of the bunch on the North & West, first class performers.

 

 

 

 

On 12/10/2023 at 16:50, MidlandRed said:

 

 

[br2975]

7 hours ago, Rivercider said:

 

I believe Hymeks were regular visitors to Minehead, particularly on summer Saturday services.

   

 

D7050 departs Minehead with a service for Paddington. No date. Photo by Anthony Guppy.

 

.

Two summers running, 1969 and 1970, we holidayed ( if that is the correct term ) at Butlitz, Minehead.

.

My dad couldn't drive, and with his being an  anorak as well  we just 'had' to go on the train, from Cardiff.

.

On both occasions we travelled by DMU from Taunton to Minehead, but returned the following Saturday on the 'summer dated , SO ' Hymek hauled Minehead - Paddington as far as Taunton.

.

D7100 was our power on 7th. September, 1969, with D7065 providing the horses on 8th. August, 1970.... whence we went forward to Bristol behind 'Peak' D141.

Edited October 13, 2023 by br2975

[john new]

Longest passenger train I ever saw was a Hymek hauled job. I was a student at Eastleigh at the time so circa 1970 (+ or -2 yrs)* and there was an industrial action taking place. The early evening Birmingham - Poole came through running a bit late but with the stock of that plus the earlier one that had been cancelled at least for the section over the SWML. From memory something like 16 coaches. Had a good run behind one on the Portsmouth - Southampton - Salisbury route too, That would have been 1972, the year I left the area and had a run about ticket in the short gap from leaving work before moving.

 

* I did 2 years f/t and then another 2 part time/day release between 1968 and 1972 hence the uncertainty as to dates..

[MidlandRed]

1 hour ago, br2975 said:

.

.

The first tranche of Cl.25s to hit the Western were D5179-5182 & D7624/25 in October, 1970.

.

They were fitted with EQ brakes, of which the locals were allegedly highly suspicious.

.

Then eight former Western EE Type 3s that had earlier 'gone north' (a cardinal sin in South Wales at the time) returned from Healey Mills in May, 1971 also equipped with this (alleged) 'satanic device'

.

An attempt was made by 'upstairs' to keep all these locos for Eastern & Western valleys jobs off Ebbw Junction and Aberbeeg.

Interesting choice of 25s - no doubt pure coincidence but 5179-82 were products of Darlington and 7624/5 of Beyer Peacock. At least that would put paid to any WR anti-Derby bias (if it even existed at that stage…)!! Did that brake format affect any other transfers? I seem to recall further class 37s from elsewhere had this. 
 

On the point about gears on Hymeks, the group allocated for Lickey banking duties had modifications (first gear locked out?) following initial issues experienced. 

Edited October 13, 2023 by MidlandRed

[Stoke West]

On 12/10/2023 at 21:57, Rivercider said:

There are a number of photos on Flickr of Hymeks on expresses.

 

 

D7028 at Reading 27 July 1968 by snatmann

 

 

D7037 at Stoke Gifford with a Pembroke Dock to Paddington 3 June 1963 by John Whiteley

 

D7031 leaving Reading with a Weston-super-Mare to Paddington by Colin Alexander,

 

ALso this described as being at Weston-super-Mare though I do not recognise the scene.

D7046 departs with 12.35 SO Weston-super-Mare to Paddington, photo by late Colin Caddy,

 

cheers

 

D7046 on 1A50 the sidings on the left aren't trapped so the line to the left of the train is a siding , the line the train is on being flat bottom would suggest it is a running line , is the train facing down on the up line with the wagons being on the other running line with loop and siding behind . I would like to suggest Bath Goods , box with three ventilaters and Claverton Down as back drop . Dont mind being proved wrong 

[Stoke West]

On 12/10/2023 at 21:57, Rivercider said:

There are a number of photos on Flickr of Hymeks on expresses.

 

 

D7028 at Reading 27 July 1968 by snatmann

 

 

D7037 at Stoke Gifford with a Pembroke Dock to Paddington 3 June 1963 by John Whiteley

 

D7031 leaving Reading with a Weston-super-Mare to Paddington by Colin Alexander,

 

ALso this described as being at Weston-super-Mare though I do not recognise the scene.

D7046 departs with 12.35 SO Weston-super-Mare to Paddington, photo by late Colin Caddy,

 

cheers

 

D7037 at Stoke West with a rather smart double bracket in front the loco with Stoke East outer pulled off , the top bracket with arm for the up goods and the lower one with large disc for the up reception . And a nice set of switch diamonds where the up Filton crosses the down main

[br2975]

27 minutes ago, MidlandRed said:

Interesting choice of 25s - no doubt pure coincidence but 5179-82 were products of Darlington and 7624/5 of Beyer Peacock. At least that would put paid to any WR anti-Derby bias (if it even existed at that stage…)!! Did that brake format affect any other transfers? I seem to recall further class 37s from elsewhere had this. 

.

6918+6923+6929, 6914+6927+6930 and also 6917+6939 arrived at Canton on Saturday, 1st. May, 1971 having been transferred from Healey Mills.

All eight were fitted with EQ brakes and were for exclusive use on Newport Ebbw Junction and Aberbeeg duties.

.

From the start of the 1971-1972 WTT on Monday, 3rd. May, 1971,

(i)

Newport, Ebbw Junction (86B) had 17x Cl.37 workings,                                                         

5x outstabled at Aberbeeg,                                                                                                             

1x outstabled at Severn Tunnel Junction

(ii)

Ebbw Jcn allocated Cl.25  duties included,

Lydney and Parkend branches, 

Pontypool Road shunt and

the heavier iron ore workings between Newport Docks and Ebbw Vale or Llanwern steelworks.

The Parkend branch saw considerable mineral traffic necessitating as many as three daily trips, usually on Mondays, providing much ballast for the permanent way department.

.

The following is an extract from the informative  "Derby Sulzers" site:-

.

".... D5179 - 5182 went to Ebbw Junction for testing in multiple on the 63 mile Port Talbot - Ebbw Vale iron ore trains, which included the six mile 1 in 80 gradient between Aberbeeg and Ebbw Vale, often requiring a restart at Aberbeeg.

These services highlighted known weaknesses with the Class 25's traction motors especially when worked in multiple.

The 25/1 & 2 subclasses had field weakening controlled by the engine governor and main generator field strength whilst the 25/3 subclass had speed induced field weakening.

Should a trailing unit have improperly functioning field weakening it was possible for the motors to sustain major damage without the driver's knowledge.

In addition the margin between the continuous and short time ratings for the motors was minimal. Remedies for this involved strict maintenance, driver education, avoiding mixing 25/3's with earlier machines or reducing trailing loads if that happened.

As a result on these workings the 25/1's had their maximum tonnage reduced from 930 tons to 810 tons.

Tests using 7569 & 7676 in June and October 1972 specifically identified the sub-class variations as the main weakness.

This was especially true in the field divert relays and their poor adjustment.

Other areas of concern were faulty traction motor blowers, overly high engine governor settings, load regulator switches failing in the closed position, thus giving fluctuations and excessive current.

Whilst the small motor may have been easy to work on it still required a lifting of the body to change it out.

As motors were connected in series parallel flashovers might occur in sympathy and could lead to a main generator failure.

In 1976 an attempt to resolve the problems involved 25088 being fitted with a redesigned field divert contactor and adjusted field divert resistor with the main generator altered to Class 25/3 specifications. (Such were the results of the testing of 7569 & 7676)......"

[kevinlms]

33 minutes ago, br2975 said:

.

6918+6923+6929, 6914+6927+6930 and also 6917+6939 arrived at Canton on Saturday, 1st. May, 1971 having been transferred from Healey Mills.

All eight were fitted with EQ brakes and were for exclusive use on Newport Ebbw Junction and Aberbeeg duties.

.

From the start of the 1971-1972 WTT on Monday, 3rd. May, 1971,

(i)

Newport, Ebbw Junction (86B) had 17x Cl.37 workings,                                                         

5x outstabled at Aberbeeg,                                                                                                             

1x outstabled at Severn Tunnel Junction

(ii)

Ebbw Jcn allocated Cl.25  duties included,

Lydney and Parkend branches, 

Pontypool Road shunt and

the heavier iron ore workings between Newport Docks and Ebbw Vale or Llanwern steelworks.

The Parkend branch saw considerable mineral traffic necessitating as many as three daily trips, usually on Mondays, providing much ballast for the permanent way department.

.

The following is an extract from the informative  "Derby Sulzers" site:-

.

".... D5179 - 5182 went to Ebbw Junction for testing in multiple on the 63 mile Port Talbot - Ebbw Vale iron ore trains, which included the six mile 1 in 80 gradient between Aberbeeg and Ebbw Vale, often requiring a restart at Aberbeeg.

These services highlighted known weaknesses with the Class 25's traction motors especially when worked in multiple.

The 25/1 & 2 subclasses had field weakening controlled by the engine governor and main generator field strength whilst the 25/3 subclass had speed induced field weakening.

Should a trailing unit have improperly functioning field weakening it was possible for the motors to sustain major damage without the driver's knowledge.

In addition the margin between the continuous and short time ratings for the motors was minimal. Remedies for this involved strict maintenance, driver education, avoiding mixing 25/3's with earlier machines or reducing trailing loads if that happened.

As a result on these workings the 25/1's had their maximum tonnage reduced from 930 tons to 810 tons.

Tests using 7569 & 7676 in June and October 1972 specifically identified the sub-class variations as the main weakness.

This was especially true in the field divert relays and their poor adjustment.

Other areas of concern were faulty traction motor blowers, overly high engine governor settings, load regulator switches failing in the closed position, thus giving fluctuations and excessive current.

Whilst the small motor may have been easy to work on it still required a lifting of the body to change it out.

As motors were connected in series parallel flashovers might occur in sympathy and could lead to a main generator failure.

In 1976 an attempt to resolve the problems involved 25088 being fitted with a redesigned field divert contactor and adjusted field divert resistor with the main generator altered to Class 25/3 specifications. (Such were the results of the testing of 7569 & 7676)......"

So what did the LMR do, did they have the same problem?