Performance of D0280 'Falcon'

[1165Valour]

In the comment section of a YouTube video on D0280 Falcon, a former BR employee stationed at Ebbw described seeing the engine, and mentioned that the engine spent more time under repair than working. The implication seems to be that this was due to the difficulty of obtaining spares for the one-off engine, rather than it being a poor design. 

 

That leads me to wonder: compared with the other Type 4 locomotives, how did Falcon compare?

[Wickham Green too]

The other implication being that it NEEDED spares.

[The Johnster]

It used parts that were pretty common; the D655 Maybachs were the same as those in the Class 52s and the generator and traction equipment the same as the Brush Type 4 Class 47s.  The loco apparently performed well and reliably on it's booked Bristol TM-Paddington and return job, but, like the Westerns, could not be converted to supply ETH.  At this point (1970) BR bought it, fitted air brakes, and returned it to Bath Road where it continued to work alongside the 52s.  In 1974, the steam boiler was isolated and the loco xfer Ebbw Jc for use on iron ore trains, and it must have been pretty clapped out by then.  I recall seeing it working some of the last of the 35-ton hopper trains from Newport Docks to Llanwern, shortly to be replaced by 100-ton tipplers working from the new deep-water berth at Port Talbot, but it was not AFAIK sent up the valley to Ebbw Vale, which suggests that there was not much confidence in sending it any more than a stone's throw from the shed.

 

It looked and sounded the part, though, powerful and purposeful, and retained the stainless steel falcon emblem to the end.

[Wickham Green too]

3 hours ago, The Johnster said:

It used parts that were pretty common; the D655 Maybachs were the same as those in the Class 52s and the generator and traction equipment the same as the Brush Type 4 Class 47s. ...

Needless to say, whatever connected the Maybachs ( x2 ) to the generator ( x1 ? ) would have been unique to this loco and might have been problematic !!?!

[The Johnster]

IIRC there were two generators, one for each engine, as one of the design briefs for this project was to showcase electric traction motor performance in a loco as close as possible to the Western DH.  What connected the engine and the generator was the engine output drive shaft, which is a solid piece that gives little trouble as long as it doesn’t crack…

 

The Class 55 Deltic is a similar twin-power plant installation, and TTBOMK the output drive shafts in this (important to make the distinction because a Deltic engine has 3 internal crank/drive shafts) loco were reliable in service.  An advantage of a twin-power plant installation (the Warships featured this as well) was that smaller power units could be used which were easier to accommodate within the UK loading gauge, important in the early days with diesels as single power plant locos tended to be heavy, and that the doubling of power plants, especially with separate fuel and electrical systems, meant that a complete failure was rare and the loco would usually get you home, even if it lost time.  This was a notable selling point given the poor reliability of some of the Modernisation Plan diesels.  
 

Falcon can be regarded as a demonstrator showing that a loco built to the WR lightweight twin-power plant concept could be produced with electric transmission.  In the event the single turbocharged Sulzer BRCW prototype Lion was the concept taken up, produced as the 47 by Brush following BRCW’s demise.  This concept with an EE prime mover also featured in DP2, which was eventually developed as the 110mph Class 50 for the WCML.  
 

Falcon was therefore ultimately a developmental dead end, but a bargain for BR who got it off Brush for scrap price in 1970 and had five years’ service out of it.  I’m not aware of any particular reliability issues with it but it was no doubt circling the drain in it’s Ebbw Jc days, and that shed had no Maybach experience nor any 47s with similar generator or traction equipment.  

Edited March 9 by The Johnster

[Halvarras]

I think there was talk of its traction motors beginning to fail one by one requiring isolation due to the lack of suitable spares towards the end too......?

 

It must have had enough still operable in 1975 to perform what may have been one of its last duties - hauling a breakdown train up a Welsh valley to assist in the difficult recovery of 37143, which had derailed and slipped down an embankment on its side at Marine Colliery, Cwm on 29th January 1975 - it was finally recovered on 4th August. I have seen a photo with Falcon visible in the background, its presence IIRC not commented on in the caption. Can't recall where I saw it now so can't look up the date.

 

D'oh......found it on Flickr! It was recovery day, 4th August.

 

Edited March 9 by Halvarras
Should have looked first, then posted!

[The Johnster]

IIRC they recovered the bogies on that occasion but the loco proved less co-operative, for several months.  When it was eventually recovered it was brought back to Canton, by road I think, and mounted on spare bogies in preparation for being hauled to Doncaster for repair, but I think it eventually went up by road on a low loader.  

[kevinlms]

3 hours ago, The Johnster said:

An advantage of a twin-power plant installation (the Warships featured this as well) was that smaller power units could be used which were easier to accommodate within the UK loading gauge, important in the early days with diesels as single power plant locos tended to be heavy, and that the doubling of power plants, especially with separate fuel and electrical systems, meant that a complete failure was rare and the loco would usually get you home, even if it lost time.  This was a notable selling point given the poor reliability of some of the Modernisation Plan diesels.  

 

 

But twin power units of a smaller size, isn't something that is really the answer, because there are twice as many parts to go wrong. If that was the case, all large diesel locos would be of that format.

In fact, even the largest US diesels rarely have twin engine arrangements, they have one large one and essentially bolt on the required number of cylinders.

 

Some British diesel locos that were built as twin engines (or more), for the very reason you suggest of not a complete failure, proved to be some of the most unreliable BR locos built. The Clayton's Class 17 and the disastrous Fell locomotive comes to mind.

[daveyb]

The largest US locos were twin engines but effectively two locomotives sharing a common chassis (DD40 and Alco Century).  They were quite effective but suffered the other problem where one engine failure meant a huge amount of dead weight.  They were scuppered by a huge fuel bill (around the time of the Suez crisis) and an a lack of flexidility.  US railroads have never really seen the issues UK railways have with route availability when it comes to what might be considered mainlines soit was't a weight issues.  US practice was to use smaller units and add as necessary but they were (and probably are) way ahead of the game with multiple unit operation.  Just look at the 'robot' mid train and rear end 'helpers'

 

The obvious comparison might be the Germans who were fond of multiple engined locos, but a more realistic comparison and apparently the way forward would be many engined  multiple units (e. g. Voyager series)

 

Falcon was a very interesting prototype in that it went against the standard thoughts of slower heavier engines coupled to electric transmission and offered a smaller, faster engine (as was sort of proven by the WR hydraulics) but with electric transmission as a two in one body, like a Deltic but not like DP2.  Ultimately the choice went with bigger, slower engines.  We will never know whetehr this was the correct decision.

 

Interesting comment above about not being able to be fitted with ETH.  Surely the twin generators could have been modified to suit, but maybe it was a space issue as there was in the air brake program for the WR hydraulics (and not wanting to/having space to add a separate ETH power unit like the E&G 27s

[Artless Bodger]

Did the higher speed of the engines enable a direct coupling to the generator? I think the Sulzer and EE engines had step up gears between crankshaft and generator. Another benefit of the smaller engines was supposed to be that all parts could be handled within the loco, smaller pistons, cylinder heads etc, so you did not need to have an overhead crane and take the roof off for most maintenance. If you did take the roof off, you could swap lightweight engines out as a single unit quickly as in aeroplanes (power eggs), not surprisingly considering the Germans' aeronautical background, e.g. Maybach engines in airships etc. Iirc Deltics and Westerns were known for quick engine swaps, repair by replacement, Laira was good at this, less time out of traffic.

 

EMD E series diesels used double engines and generators, they were pretty succesful for their time.

[kevinlms]

1 hour ago, Artless Bodger said:

 

EMD E series diesels used double engines and generators, they were pretty succesful for their time.

Maybe, but the 567 series and later of engines probably outnumbered them. F series and the SD were all single engines.

[TM2201A]

19 hours ago, The Johnster said:

It used parts that were pretty common; ...the generator and traction equipment the same as the Brush Type 4 Class 47s.  

 Sorry that's just wrong, Falcon's generators and motors were unique.

[Halvarras]

19 minutes ago, TM2201A said:

 Sorry that's just wrong, Falcon's generators and motors were unique.

 

And AIUI the MD655s had been modified to work with generators in such a way that they were not interchangeable with those in the Western fleet.

Which begs the question, was there a spare modified MD655 held by Brush for Falcon or could a serious engine failure (e.g. 'leg out of bed' type) have side-lined the loco at any time?

[russ p]

2 hours ago, Halvarras said:

 

And AIUI the MD655s had been modified to work with generators in such a way that they were not interchangeable with those in the Western fleet.

Which begs the question, was there a spare modified MD655 held by Brush for Falcon or could a serious engine failure (e.g. 'leg out of bed' type) have side-lined the loco at any time?

 

Was that the engine they put in hawk?

[Halvarras]

1 hour ago, russ p said:

 

Was that the engine they put in hawk?

 

You're correct, indeed it was - I'd forgotten about that!

[br2975]

On 09/03/2024 at 16:47, The Johnster said:

It used parts that were pretty common; the D655 Maybachs were the same as those in the Class 52s and the generator and traction equipment the same as the Brush Type 4 Class 47s.  The loco apparently performed well and reliably on it's booked Bristol TM-Paddington and return job, but, like the Westerns, could not be converted to supply ETH.  At this point (1970) BR bought it, fitted air brakes, and returned it to Bath Road where it continued to work alongside the 52s.  In 1974, the steam boiler was isolated and the loco xfer Ebbw Jc for use on iron ore trains, and it must have been pretty clapped out by then.  I recall seeing it working some of the last of the 35-ton hopper trains from Newport Docks to Llanwern, shortly to be replaced by 100-ton tipplers working from the new deep-water berth at Port Talbot, but it was not AFAIK sent up the valley to Ebbw Vale, which suggests that there was not much confidence in sending it any more than a stone's throw from the shed.

 

It looked and sounded the part, though, powerful and purposeful, and retained the stainless steel falcon emblem to the end.

.

After being purchased by BR 'Falcon' was taken into Swindon Works late in 1970, overhauled and her vac brakes removed and air brakes fitted - I suspect in advance of air braked Mk.2 stock being introduced on the Padd-Bristol route; but unusually she appears to have kept her steam heating..

.

At this time she was also repainted blue, initially keeping her number "0280" only losing the 'D' .

.

However, she was renumbered 1200 before being released from the works, back to Bristol, Bath Road.

.

She was officially renumbered from '0280' to '1200' on 19/12/1970.

.

'Falcon' was transferred to Ebbw Junction during August 1972  ( NOT 1974 as mentioned by 'Johnster' ), thence to Canton from 21/10/1972 (was this just a paper exercise ?) before returning to Ebbw Junction from 12/05/1973.

Canton was theoretically responsible for Falcon's more involved 'needs' and there are photographs to show she was dealt with at Canton.

A longtime friend of mine and retired Canton fitter repaired Falcon's speedo there.

.

'Falcon' was also dealt with, at Gloucester, Horton Road on a few occasions.

..

Following transfer from Bath Road, I first saw her at Ebbw Junction on 26th. August, 1972, and many times after.

.

On 27th. September, 1972 she arrived at Derby,towing Cl.25 7520 which was destined for works attention.

'Falcopn' promptly  returned light to the Western Region.

.

I would argue that she wasn't 'clapped out' on her arrival at Ebbw Junction, as she was but 4 months out of Swindon ( I had seen her there on 4th. April, 1972 ), and straight off front line workings between Paddington, Bristol and WSM, as well as summer saturday jaunts to Torbay.

.

Whilst she may have been seen on Newport Docks - Llanwern (Spencer Works) iron ore turns,  this was not her intended, or rostered duty, as by the time she arrived at Ebbw Junction that depots Newport Docks - Llanwern and Newport Docks - Ebbw Vale iron ore turns had been in the hands of pairs of Cl.25s since late 1970,  Ebbw Junction had copious amounts of Cl.25s by August 1972.

.

1200s rostered duties whilst at Ebbw Junction were 'Class 9' trips from ADJ (Alexandra Dock Junction) yard opposite Ebbw Junction on the south side of the SWML, to East Usk Yard, the Uskmouth Branch including Stewarts & Lloyds, Orb Works, Monsanto Chemicals, British Aluminium and Lysaghts.

.

These trips were normally  05:20 - 23:50 Mondays, 01:05 - 23:50 Tuesdays - Fridays and 01:05 - 14:17 Saturdays or until 17:57 if required.

 

There are reports of 'Falcon' reaching as far as Hereford, Radyr and Ebbw Vale whilst allox to Ebbw Junction.

.

'Falcon' was officially withdrawn on 18th. May, 1974 and turned up out of the blue at Brush, Loughborough about a week later. 

.

The story goes that she had failed at Newport and 'higher authority' felt she should be returned to her owners, Brush.

Brush asked BR "why is Falcon in our siding ?"

"Well it's your loco" was the alleged BR response

"You bought it off us four years ago !" said the Brush employee.

'Falcon' returned  to Ebbw Junction, passing Derby on 16th. June, 1974 behind 47106, was repaired and reinstated to traffic, for almost a further year's service..

This tale is allegedly part of Ebbw Junction folklore.

 

As mentioned elsewhere, along with some Cl.47s, 'Falcon' was involved in the recovery of the Cl.37 that fell down an embankment at Cwm, twixt Aberbeeg and Ebbw Vale during 1975 where 'Kelbus' gear was used to extricate the errant Cl.37.

Hardly a job for a 'clapped out' loco.

.

.

As for 'Falcon' retaining her cast emblems to the end, that was more by luck, than judgement - and the work of the BTP in recovering the missing crest.......... which during its enforced absence had been replaced by a self adhesive image of 'Babar the Elephant' - which was not removed when the recovered crest was restored to the side of the loco, and remained visible beneath.

See the photo below...........................

.

.

Edited March 10 by br2975

[DY444]

14 hours ago, br2975 said:

.

After being purchased by BR 'Falcon' was taken into Swindon Works late in 1970, overhauled and her vac brakes removed and air brakes fitted - I suspect in advance of air braked Mk.2 stock being introduced on the Padd-Bristol route; but unusually she appears to have kept her steam heating..

.

 

The boiler was obviously retained so it could work with the aforementioned air braked Mk2 stock, and heat it when required, which, as we know, is what happened for a while before it moved to South Wales.

[Wickham Green too]

Air braked and steam heat ....... now that's a pretty unusual combination.

[russ p]

As they had already started withdrawing type 4 hydraulics seemed an odd thing to overhaul a completely non standard loco

[D9020 Nimbus]

While the class 47 resembled "Lion" in several aspects, its arrival on the scene was a bit more haphazard. AFAIK, the first six were originally going to be class 46s (perhaps D194-9?) but Eastern Region intervention caused them to be built in the way they were. There was quite a close relationship between the ER and Brush — witness the attempts to uprate the type 2s to 1600 then 2000hp.

 

I've seen this ascribed to the fact that Sir Ronald Matthews, the last LNER chairman, became chairman of Brush.

[Halvarras]

10 minutes ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

While the class 47 resembled "Lion" in several aspects, its arrival on the scene was a bit more haphazard. AFAIK, the first six were originally going to be class 46s (perhaps D194-9?) but Eastern Region intervention caused them to be built in the way they were. There was quite a close relationship between the ER and Brush — witness the attempts to uprate the type 2s to 1600 then 2000hp.

 

I've seen this ascribed to the fact that Sir Ronald Matthews, the last LNER chairman, became chairman of Brush.

 

The 'Winter 1960-61' Ian Allan ABC shows the Class 46s running up to D199 then continuing with D1500 to D1513 - total = 20. There were 20 'generator' Brush Type 4s so it's clear what happened........

[keefer]

22 hours ago, br2975 said:

As for 'Falcon' retaining her cast emblems to the end, that was more by luck, than judgement - and the work of the BTP in recovering the missing crest.......... which during its enforced absence had been replaced by a self adhesive image of 'Babar the Elephant' - which was not removed when the recovered crest was restored to the side of the loco, and remained visible beneath.

See the photo below...........................

.

.

Edited 21 hours ago by br2975

There was a thread on this many years and RMWebs ago, inc. a colour pic.

From comparison to the characters in the Babar stories, the sticker was of Alexander or Pom (Babar's sons) due to the blue shorts (style of shirt worn would differentiate but it's not visible!)

[Matt37268]

23 hours ago, br2975 said:

.

After being purchased by BR 'Falcon' was taken into Swindon Works late in 1970, overhauled and her vac brakes removed and air brakes fitted - I suspect in advance of air braked Mk.2 stock being introduced on the Padd-Bristol route; but unusually she appears to have kept her steam heating..

.

At this time she was also repainted blue, initially keeping her number "0280" only losing the 'D' .

.

However, she was renumbered 1200 before being released from the works, back to Bristol, Bath Road.

.

She was officially renumbered from '0280' to '1200' on 19/12/1970.

.

'Falcon' was transferred to Ebbw Junction during August 1972  ( NOT 1974 as mentioned by 'Johnster' ), thence to Canton from 21/10/1972 (was this just a paper exercise ?) before returning to Ebbw Junction from 12/05/1973.

Canton was theoretically responsible for Falcon's more involved 'needs' and there are photographs to show she was dealt with at Canton.

A longtime friend of mine and retired Canton fitter repaired Falcon's speedo there.

.

'Falcon' was also dealt with, at Gloucester, Horton Road on a few occasions.

..

Following transfer from Bath Road, I first saw her at Ebbw Junction on 26th. August, 1972, and many times after.

.

On 27th. September, 1972 she arrived at Derby,towing Cl.25 7520 which was destined for works attention.

'Falcopn' promptly  returned light to the Western Region.

.

I would argue that she wasn't 'clapped out' on her arrival at Ebbw Junction, as she was but 4 months out of Swindon ( I had seen her there on 4th. April, 1972 ), and straight off front line workings between Paddington, Bristol and WSM, as well as summer saturday jaunts to Torbay.

.

Whilst she may have been seen on Newport Docks - Llanwern (Spencer Works) iron ore turns,  this was not her intended, or rostered duty, as by the time she arrived at Ebbw Junction that depots Newport Docks - Llanwern and Newport Docks - Ebbw Vale iron ore turns had been in the hands of pairs of Cl.25s since late 1970,  Ebbw Junction had copious amounts of Cl.25s by August 1972.

.

1200s rostered duties whilst at Ebbw Junction were 'Class 9' trips from ADJ (Alexandra Dock Junction) yard opposite Ebbw Junction on the south side of the SWML, to East Usk Yard, the Uskmouth Branch including Stewarts & Lloyds, Orb Works, Monsanto Chemicals, British Aluminium and Lysaghts.

.

These trips were normally  05:20 - 23:50 Mondays, 01:05 - 23:50 Tuesdays - Fridays and 01:05 - 14:17 Saturdays or until 17:57 if required.

 

There are reports of 'Falcon' reaching as far as Hereford, Radyr and Ebbw Vale whilst allox to Ebbw Junction.

.

'Falcon' was officially withdrawn on 18th. May, 1974 and turned up out of the blue at Brush, Loughborough about a week later. 

.

The story goes that she had failed at Newport and 'higher authority' felt she should be returned to her owners, Brush.

Brush asked BR "why is Falcon in our siding ?"

"Well it's your loco" was the alleged BR response

"You bought it off us four years ago !" said the Brush employee.

'Falcon' returned  to Ebbw Junction, passing Derby on 16th. June, 1974 behind 47106, was repaired and reinstated to traffic, for almost a further year's service..

This tale is allegedly part of Ebbw Junction folklore.

 

As mentioned elsewhere, along with some Cl.47s, 'Falcon' was involved in the recovery of the Cl.37 that fell down an embankment at Cwm, twixt Aberbeeg and Ebbw Vale during 1975 where 'Kelbus' gear was used to extricate the errant Cl.37.

Hardly a job for a 'clapped out' loco.

.

.

As for 'Falcon' retaining her cast emblems to the end, that was more by luck, than judgement - and the work of the BTP in recovering the missing crest.......... which during its enforced absence had been replaced by a self adhesive image of 'Babar the Elephant' - which was not removed when the recovered crest was restored to the side of the loco, and remained visible beneath.

See the photo below...........................

.

.

I was informed by a certain someone high up in the DTG that they originally wanted Falcon but part of the contract between Brush and BR meant that it could only sold for cutting up. Shame really but then I don’t think we’d have ended up with 1015. 

[The Johnster]

8 hours ago, russ p said:

As they had already started withdrawing type 4 hydraulics seemed an odd thing to overhaul a completely non standard loco

 

The Warships were the first of the Type 4 hydraulics to be withdrawn (this taking place comtemporaneously with 1200's purchase by BR for scrap value) owing to the difficulty of installing train air-brake equipment aboard them.  The Westerns lasted a few years longer as train air-brakes could be fitted, enabling the locos to be used on the increasing number of air-braked passenger and freight duties of the early 70s.  It is not unreasonable to regard 1200 as eqivalent to a Western in service, and there was certainly plenty of work for it at Bath Rd. until the introduction of eth stock, which is the reason that the Westerns were withdrawn.  1200s brief final adventure at Ebbw Jc seems to have been for a specific duty and likely never intended to be a long-term arrangement.  It may have been decided that the loco was still serviceable but not suitable for high-speed work for some reason.

Edited March 12 by The Johnster

[jim.snowdon]

On 10/03/2024 at 10:09, Artless Bodger said:

Did the higher speed of the engines enable a direct coupling to the generator? I think the Sulzer and EE engines had step up gears between crankshaft and generator.

I'm not aware of any British diesel electrics having anything but a direct connection between the engine and generator shafts. The common approach was for the generator to have only an outer end bearing, the inner end of its shaft being supported by the engine crankshaft.

US practice, from what I have seen, tends towards making the generator mechanically independent of the engine, but still coupled directly.