MidlandRed

Love the D1960 - is this a TMC or other retailer one. Definitely of great interest 😀

I’m afraid I simply can’t unsee this, it looks so wrong!! Like a Hymek subjected to the loco equivalent of a 1970’s pro dart player diet 🤪 And surely it would have the broad green band a la class 25 and 47 thinking - those being the last new two tone green BR productions - the narrow low level sherwood green Of the Deltic/Hymek is a late 50s/early 60s design panel variant!! Nice idea though 😄 Love the D423, Accurascale - you would see 20+ of these a day at Crewe, 1968/9 onwards. Unfortunately they didn’t venture much south of Crewe until banishment to the WR!! 😉

And there was me thinking you were describing the subject of today’s announcement - your phrase sums it up perfectly and if I was in the market for an early BR vintage thoroughbred, 46220 in blue would fit the bill perfectly 😉😁 Im pleased to see other manufacturers including late 60s blue diesels in their new offerings as well - perfecto and likely to lighten the wallet (eventually)!! 😉

Will do - 10 am you say - I hope not but it sounds somewhat mundane from this - I shall see it in person (if something tangible and not a new super duper TT club or the like) Sunday, Network Rail and various TOCs and their staff permitting…..they say currently they will be.

I thought I’d tune in to the last page of this thread to see what was happening, only to find the usual arguments about Hornby killing retailers and going direct and every other rather well worn moan about them and how they should run their business, which appear in many Hornby threads - I shall wait and see what they actually do announce - in some ways I would like to see them announce an ultimate class 50 which is available before competitors - just to see the outcry on the appropriate threads - especially if made available in a few more early variants than a competitor’s D423 (though kudos to them for even including that version - the class 37 has avoided most early versions). It’s funny, there was a long running Hornby moaning thread about models not being available at retailers - but I’ve had emails from a certain large retailer offering new Hornby models - I can’t believe none of the usual members who moan about such things didn’t receive such emails - maybe it doesn’t suit certain people’s view of the world to publicise it 😄 Anyway roll on tomorrow for the actual announcement. (PS couldn’t we have one thread called Hornby gripes and business management suggestions such that one didn’t have to wade through posts of that nature in most other Hornby threads 😜 )

Latest Hattons communication - D9545 has been made in pristine rather than weathered condition - a partial refund will be issued to cover the difference in cost 🙂 All ok with me and probably answers the query mentioned in this thread re the photos.

The BR (SR) (Eastleigh) did actually have 6 Brush Type 4s allocated variously between late 1966 and late 1968 - D1921-26. These were reallocated when around a year old from the WR (Canton and Bath Road - @The Johnster I’m surprised the memory of the theft of a handful of these from Canton hasn’t gone down in regional folklore 😁), and they certainly performed duties which included those previously entrusted to MN Pacifics - there are plenty of photos on line of them on named expresses. So in reality, it wasn’t just 33s and the various electrics and electro-diesels in terms of locos (as opposed to units).

Love your Deltics. The right hand one is IMHO fabulous (but would have been anathema at the time for many steam enthusiasts) - it would most certainly also be acceptable (to me) in blue fye 😁 both would be very reminiscent of visits to Kings Cross station platform ends in the late 60. I’m afraid the white dots, yellow plated headcode panel et al remind me too much of the late 70s and early 80s impoverished, and advancing austerity imposed upon British Rail, era - I know for some this was the heyday but I guess we all have different tastes. I had never really thought of the different elements of vehicles, bus companies, premier Derby based locomotive liveries or even Midlands area Communist societies (presuming they still exist….) which may be associated with my user name, but thanks for the observation - I guess it depends on the model but the S14 and S21-23 models have quite nice rear end designs 🤨 😅

Yes indeed - but to be honest I think any which were allocated to Bristol Bath Road are probably fair game with a bit of rule 1 licence but D9517 was one of the only ones which lasted at 82A until later in 1967 and then was transferred to S Wales (whereas most of the 82A allocated seem to have been transferred earlier to Hull, many by the end of 1966). Thus it can run alongside blue liveried locos with ‘D’ numbers - even a WR class 37 if one of the manufacturers doing them currently actually gets around to doing one - or even green syp WR ones 😉 It looks like I’ll be ordering some numbers from @cctransuk at some stage! I’ll report on what standard of weathering has been applied when it actually arrives!!

Or B***ard Castle??!!

Would that be without the left side mini snow plough, for the sake of accuracy (or is it an invisible black one)??!! 🤣 It almost looks like a WR based Central Wales loco but in the wrong colour and without a proper headcode - now there’s a possibility 😃 (Says he, hoping….)

I’ve had an email from Hattons today indicating my pre-ordered weathered D9545 is about to be shipped - looking forward to receiving it as an essential element of traction for my Worcestershire based layout - though I may be renumbering it (as well as fitting a chip)! D9517 is a good contender..

There are some great period photos and descriptions of the operation of the ex LMS Nailsworth and Stroud branches (both freight only) during the 1960s in Neil Parkhouse’s excellent book, Gloucester Midland Lines Part 2: South - Eastgate to Stroud and Nailsworth - the High Orchard and ex LMS dock goods yards are also covered. These branches were worked as a trip working, also dealing with private sidings en route, the trip loco shunting the yard. An added attraction was the transfer of these to the WR (Horton Road shed instead of Barnwood), in the early 60s, dieselisation resulting in the use of class 14 D95xx locos for the trip workings until closure in 1966.

Not to forget the Cravens class 113s - they and the class 127 were the subject of modification as a result of fire resulting from cardan shafts breaking and rupturing fuel tanks. The 113s (and mechanical transmission Rolls Royce power train 112s) were some of the earliest of the late 60s/early 70s DMU withdrawals - victims of the changing plan for the national DMU fleet to match changing traffic patterns and removal of either unreliable or non-standard classes. The original proponent of the hydraulic experiment, R C Bond, was worried about the potential Achilles heel of cardan shafts in traction applications in diesel hydraulics, as one of a series of considerations in 1957, to the extent of questioning the extension of their purchase beyond the 116 authorised for the initial West of England scheme - that scheme was viewed as essential to achieve savings required by steam elimination in that area. Unfortunately the emerging info on costs and also the development of lighter, 2700 hp or thereabouts, diesel electrics removed two of the key advantages of hydraulic power (lower initial cost and lighter weight for similar power) - some of the former were caused by both NBL and Swindon cost overruns.

Interesting re the 25s @The Johnster However the 5400 hp, double headed accelerated WCML services didn’t commence until the early 70s - the D400s operated the services singly for some time after introduction in 1967/8. Only the first couple were fitted for multiple working initially also. My GW ‘billiard table’ comment had been meant partially in jest (hence the emoji). Off topic but It’s often overlooked that the WCML was also given 15 rebuilt class 83s and 10 rebuilt class 84s to go with the 36 new class 87s. It also shouldn’t be overlooked that the ECML passenger services were operated in the 60s not only with Deltics but also class 40, 45 and 47 - all of which classes also operated over Shap, Beattock (and Ais Gill). An interesting thought occurred to spotters and enthusiasts of the ex GWR in the Midlands, the LMR allocated class 47s (from 1964), were effectively class 52 and GWR King replacements 😃

The national picture was quite complex re diesel traction at the end of the 60s/early 70s. Another for instance (nothing to do with the WR though) - was the transfer to the ScR of all but D5005 (previously scrapped) of D5000-D5019 - some of these had been withdrawn for two years. Presumably they replaced either Claytons (class 17) or class 29s. It’s often the case that fleet managers keep units in the same number blocks together in terms of allocations (possibly hence D400 and 401 being the first LMR to WR transfers. Presumably national fleet management thought that as class 50 had been so successful on the most punishing route in the U.K. (including Shap and Beattock), Brunel’s bowling green would be a comparative walk in the park!! 😜

However, in the case of the 50s, I think D400 and D401 were the first to be released to the WR. I think it unlikely or an incredible coincidence that these first couple happened to be the worst of the fleet. My recollection of the early days of class 50 was their use on Anglo Scottish express passenger from the engine change at Crewe, as a stop gap for six years or so before the section north of Weaver Junction was electrified. In fact a visit to Crewe in the late 60s was exciting with this constant stream of new locos. I do not recall the train service being grossly unreliable owing to the locos being useless - in fact quite the opposite, and in the latter period operated in multiple and the service was accelerated. That the locos had certain complexities which irritated railwaymen operating them is no doubt correct. However if does seem incredible that the WR’s railwaymen should find most, if not all of the diesel fleet reallocated to them to be faulty or useless when the regions from whence they came apparently operated all of their services with them, apparently without too much of an issue. It does make me wonder whether railwaymen in that region were still smarting 25 yrs after nationalisation of the GWR and a combination of that, a great aversion to change, combined with mismanagement of training and engineering during the transfers contributed to this. Along with a dose of still seeing other regions as opponent railway companies (stemming from pre grouping days, 50 yrs before even). For instance, were staff from the LMR/ER deployed to provide operational and engineering training to the WR staff on the new (to them but not to others) classes? It would seem unbelievable if that didn’t occur - It would seem a prerequisite in a normal large business (without historical (hysterical?) baggage, Or did the WR simply moan a lot? 🤣 I don’t doubt these locos were not perfect but come on - the afore mentioned (by @Halvarras) 7675-77, the last three 25s built in 1967, had spent their early days on Co Bo replacement duties in the north west, where @The Stationmaster had seen Co Bos pottering around (by the way it’s fairly hilly, probably more so than the north and west, up there as well) - although such pottering did include the Heysham oil trains!! Im afraid that some of this sounds like moaning and reinvention of well honed wheels to me!!

As stated earlier in this thread (IIRC?!!) WR did offer hydraulic classes (type 4 class 43 and type 1 class 14) for redeployment in other regions as part of the NTP. There were no takers for the Warships and eventually a large number of class 14s went to Hull. Interestingly the WR were required to relinquish class 47 and 37s in late 1966 to the NER and ScR, being offered some new build 47s and 20s on loan pre allocation to the LMR (which didn’t get taken up). As an aside, a number of 3 car and single unit DMUs also got transferred WR to NER and ScR from 1966 onwards. The 43s were deployed on inter regional work (Paddington to Birmingham) for a while from 1967/8 and appeared on freight and parcels workings in the West Midlands, again resulting from inter regional duties which brought them from the Worcester area. The NBL Warships also got deployed on Paddington-Worcester-Hereford workings from 1967/8 until withdrawal. So there was an attempt to transfer hydraulics (partially successful) - the Hull class 14s were withdrawn after a year or so - being replaced where required by new 20s and redeployed 37s. The task of nationwide traction planning started in 1963 with the reorganisation of BR, and the first nationwide assessments of forward fleet requirements were published in the 1965 and 1967 NTPs. Prior to 1963, the individual regions had more autonomy, bearing in mind they still needed to get approval from the centre for the various plans but those plans were largely based on steam replacement at that stage.

Class 31s in rebuilt form had 1470 hp - only 80 hp less than a class 33. To consider they only worked in flatter landscapes on the ER ignores the fact that many worked in Yorkshire and the Pennines which is hardly flat, and even the GEML has its moments, like Brentwood. However, maybe the AIA wheel arrangement was an Achilles heel (much loved by Spurs, it seems though 🤣). However were the 33s geared differently for acceleration, on the SR, for use in with fast accelerating EMUs. Clearly when fitted for ETH (31) there is a big drain on power. As stated earlier, class 25s worked heavy trains throughout the LMR including in the Peak District - although the ScR had an allocation of 25s, the classes 24 and 26 were more associated with the Highland areas - in fact the 25s new in 1965/6 (D7611-23) were reallocated away from the ScR, presumably as they received the class 27s from the LMR and other replacement locos. The north and west route passenger services were originally dieselised with class 47s (after all, Canton and Landore did have a huge allocation of them). The service was also run by Warship class for a while. Presumably it was downgraded to DMUs and the other loco hauled trains mentioned because the loadings didn’t warrant anything more. It all does beg the question why the services were not simply retimed - obviously that would affect line capacity but is (was) it that intensively used? There is, of course, the possibility that some members of classes 31 and 25 were somewhat worn out when they arrived on the WR as they were not in the first flush of youth. Apart from the Warship use, were Hymeks ever used on the route? Again Canton had a decent allocation of them in the 60s, and they certainly were on the Portsmouth services.

An interesting thought but this is, effectively what happened with class 21 - however it didn’t help too much as a number were out of traffic from the early 60s (and even before on the ER) - NBL was, in any case, out of business from 1962 (and only 38 of the type 4 WR fleet of hydraulics were NBL built - the other 112 were BR built). The ScR had a small relatively type 4 (and type 5) fleet (40s and 55s) in the early 60s, mostly used on the ECML - their type 2s (classes 24 and 26) were often used in multiple, and the class 21 was not reliable - I’m sure they’d have not thanked anyone for swapping class 24 and 26s for class 22s (the WR appeared to be somewhat anti Derby so if it received these instead of 22s, it’s a moot point whether they would have found them as successful as others did!!!) However the batch of class 21s which worked in the north east of Scotland seemed to fare much better than the others (Kittybrewster allocated). Much as with class 28 and the hydraulics dispensed with in the 60s and 70s, the 21s were a target for the 1967 National Traction Plan as the overall fleet was too large for the changing traffic patterns.

This is correct, and is covered also in some detail in the class 14 on BR book by Anthony P Sayer. In September 1954, R C Bond (BTC Chief Mechanical Engineer) issued a memo to the Works and Equipment Committee on the subject of diesel hydraulic experience in Germany and that hitherto only the Fell loco had been non diesel electric - and recommended that five type 4 and six type 2 diesel hydraulic locos be approved which could be used throughout BR and could provide comparison with diesel electric, along with several benefits including initial and maintenance cost and weight. Following approval the WR was approached and undertook to collaborate with NBL on the project. The three type 4 Warship locos (D800-802) were approved in May 1955 - these 14 diesel hydraulic locos formed the DH part of the ‘Pilot Scheme’.

The D1682 - D1757 batch (Brush built) - commencing Oct 63 - of those quite a few went to Oxley in the D1682-1716 range after it had become 2B - not just for training however - they were allocated there, some subsequently becoming D02 allocated. Most of the rest were either OOC or BR. One of the early ones was unlucky enough to be in the yard and got damaged at Coton Hill Yard (Shrewsbury) when D1734 wrecked itself and demolished a signal box. The D1583 onwards batch were built at Crewe, delivered from May 64 and were the start of another batch for the WR, allocated to Canton and Landore, eventually numbering around 80 up to D1681. A total of 155 or so for the WR, later supplemented by the D19xx batch! Add to this 150 type 4 hydraulics, the WR certainly had plenty of type 4 motive power by 1966 - whether it was all functional or not is another matter 😀

Apparently it was entirely possible to be sprayed by diesel oil as these passed by. There are some interesting photos on Flickr of members of the class parked on shed with the side liberally soaked in fresh oil!!

D5700, 03, 04, 09, 10 and 13 were variously out of use from between late 1964/66 till withdrawal . Most of the class was formally withdrawn at the end of 1967. I guess @The Stationmaster must have been on holiday prior to those dates to have seen them all in service, or possibly mistook the locos stored in and around depots as in service - some of those were engineless so would hardly have been pulling trains!! Whatever, it must have been quite a narrow window of time as the class was transferred to Cumbria during late 1961/early 1963 following refurbishment and other work carried out by Metro-Vick at Dukinfield, having been stored for a period prior to that in 1961. Anthony P Sayers’ book on the class, researched from published material and official records, gives a very detailed account of the class. It appears the Crossley engines were the real Achilles heel, hence the re-engining considerations in the mid 60s - as with other troublesome classes, the emerging NTP put paid to them.

I think we’re largely saying the same sort of thing on availability and utilisation. Picking the example of the Co Bos is interesting, ranking as one of the most disastrous purchases of the modernisation plan. I can see why those locos in works, in that instance, would be excluded from regional figures - five of them were in Crewe works for potential re-engining from 1965, and were eventually towed to the north west and dumped - never being used, finally scrapped. I would have thought locos in this category would have been written off the fleet during such processes - another example were the class 48, re-engined at Crewe and converted over a period at the end of the 60s, beginning of the 70s. Presumably written off the operational fleet during the process? On the other hand planned maintenance exams should, surely be accounted for in overall availability figures, as these would impact required fleet size.