Foden

Don’t suppose anyone has access to the above info they wouldn’t mind sharing, or linking to?

Thank you for all the replies so far, it’s made a lot more sense of things. What a fascinating read! Thank you for sharing these anecdotes. However, one would have thought that 2x 37 would easily outpower a single 56, how much extra tonnage were the pair of 37s moving?

Out of interest, is there readily available literature out there which outlines what each class of TOPS loco is restricted to operate in tonnage?

Thanks, As a side, I’ve been reading your ‘modernisation plan diesels’ thread from back in January of 2016 whilst I’ve been soaking up the sun here in Tenerife on holiday. I stumbled upon it whilst doing a forum search for something totally different, and became engrossed in it. What a fantastic thread of knowledge, and fantastic read that has been. Hugely off topic, but just wished to share that as I recognised your username!

Thank you to all that have replied already. Will someone correct me if I’m wrong on my physics here: Tractive effort is the ability to physically put down power to get things moving, but once moving it’s more about the power (drawbar horsepower?) up front as to how quick that load moves. Thus an 08 with high tractive effort but a low horsepower of 350hp can move heavy loads, but not that quickly? One would assume that tractive effort is a formula of power at rail (geared as required) and weight of the loco, through however many driven axles? Brake force then is not so important on modern fully fitted trains, but more so on older unfitted trains? I’m thinking of an example of trying to stop Mrs Foden’s full shopping trolley at ASDA after she’s been paid. Mrs Foden is a much smaller class 20 and would find it harder to stop the unfitted trolley than the ‘ahem’ larger class 40 Mr Foden, who could stop a heavier trolley sooner. But if the trolley had its own brakes like the luggage ones at the airport, the brake force is in the trolley, so becomes less of a consideration, only then the ability to get the trolley moving? As a side note, what’s the difference in real terms between starting or peak tractive effort, and continuous?

Thanks, that’s not something I’d considered to be honest. Is the ‘passenger’ loco generally under power in the consist also?

Not so much the lesser powered type 1s and 2s which I’m aware worked commonly in pairs on heavy freight, but type 3s and 4s. Was the reason for double heading of heavy freights for accelerated timings, or more tractive effort? I’ve seen footage of 47s working heavy tank trains seemingly perfectly adequately on their own, but also 47s in pairs working the same length trains. Was this to speed up the train on busy sections between available loops? Equally 37s in pairs was quite common on heavy stone and metals freight, yet on visions ‘Sector 37’ dvd there’s footage of a single heavyweight 37 working what was quoted once Britain’s heaviest freight train of bitumen out of Severn tunnel on its own? Why would this have been if pairing up of 37s in heavy freight was common at the time? I can only assume it’s down to timing and the aforementioned train was in no particular rush, and the 37 had adequate tractive effort and power to propel the train along at a modest pace. And finally, why is it that 86s are often used in pairs on Freightliners, whilst the marginally more powerful 90s manage on their own? Is this the gearing of the respective subclasses used?

So who actually owned the locos in question? Using 47975 as an example, was it part of the civil engineers fleet of locos, but being in the 9XX range had to be made available for test duties when required, but otherwise it would be free for what ever the CE dept required it for?

I'm aware that 47901 was the testbed for the class 58 engine, and made it it's own unique class. However, I've never understood why some other 47s were renumbered into 479XX numbers. As an example, 47540 was renumbered as 47975 when it received dutch livery, and then later returned to 47540, retaining its nameplates. I've an idea this may have something to do with test duties, but I've no evidence for that theory, could anyone help me understand?

I’m guessing that’s why they found considerable use in engineers use then later in life. Older redundant ex passenger use locos, largely unloved with not much other work to do, but would pull decent loads allbeit at no great speed, perfect for the job really?

In my humble opinion, DriveLock is one of the best additions for driving realism with sound fitted locos. It makes the perception of heavy trains accelerating slowly incredibly realistic (and the same in reverse). Yes this can be represented in inertia values, but DriveLock makes it even more realistic for me.

Interesting to read about the poor running and reliability of class 31s in particular. They’re a class of loco that appeal to me especially, I remember them vaguely coming through Hinckley in the late 80s, but it’s interesting how people’s opinions of them seem to have been underperforming, and unreliable poor relations to their slightly bigger class 37 brothers. I also remember seeing a couple in the early 90s when I was spotting with my dad, back then I remember a few occasions seeing a pair on 100ton tanks, and in cement tanks. The memory is sketchy but I always remember that even in pairs they always seemed to be struggling, and at that time they always seemed run down and unloved too. Was this typical of the class as a whole?

Interesting reading, thanks for the replies. So how many tanks did an 08 have? I hear of people ‘pumping the fuel to the top tank’ was this from a secondary tank?

Interesting. How is it possible to bump start an engine that has no direct mechanical link to the running wheels?

Thanks for the replies guys. So shunters, and I’m guessing some locos in general were just left merrily idling away between jobs, often for days on end, and one would assume often unattended?! How long could a moderately used 350 go between fueling?

Not shunters that worked a busy yard, maybe ones that worked a slightly less busy yard when they might not have work to do for an hour, or more. Or maybe a station pilot during off peak hours. Did crews leave them idling away for lengthy durations, or were they shut down? I’m sure I read in here of an example once where an 08 was left running permanently (dodgy starter??) until eventually a clogged oil filter resulted in its demise. Or maybe I’ve imagined it!

Very nice indeed. Looking forward very much to these.

I'm looking to find out what might have been the last example of an engineers dept all over grey loco before it gained the yellow band on the upper section of the body, and when that might have been?

Spot on, thankyou!

I have a couple of locos without high intensity headlights, that I'd like to add the typical square headlights to that they would have carried later in their lives. Is there a kit available, and has anyone here done it? I was sure express models did a 4mm kit, but I'm either dreaming it, or it's been removed from their range (Or I'm useless at searching their website and it is there!)

It's a decent bit of kit, pretty good build quality, and decent after sales and parts availability in the UK through Axminster (who I bought it off direct at Warley in a bit of a deal). In the interest of fairness I must add that I'd noticed a couple of times the motor, or milling head (top part basically, forgive the terminology!) had started to drop below what I set it at. This was in spite of using the screw in the side to secure any change in height. I noticed this on the first 2mm pass, and it'd resulted in a drop of around 3/4mm by the time I'd noticed. No great issue on the first pass, but given how thin the chassis becomes on one side when removing 7mm of metal, this could be quite a cock up when down near the required depth. I countered this by cutting 1" timber battens to a specified size, placing them at the back of the mill where the plastic runners that protect the spindle are, and lowering the 'head' down onto them. This cured any drop, and resulted at the end with a nice uniform depth. In fairness, this was my first time using the machine, and it may have just been I was feeding the material in too enthusiastically at the time, but nevertheless, it did drop. I might also add, that on this project the supplied step clamps were not of a suitable height to be able to clamp the chassis to the bench (another nod to the fact that work of this nature is probably not what this particular mill is aimed at), so I rigged up my own heath robinson clamps with longer m6 bolts, and some drilled out metal brackets to suit the job. This worked, and held the chassis in place, but it was a bit of a faff gettiing it on and off the table to inspect the work. I've since purchased a Proxxon 24260 vice which is designed for the MF70 table. It's a small vice but opens upto 30mm, perfect for securing 00 scale chassis infact! Knowing what I know now, I'd wholly suggest anyone buying this mill for this work to do so also, it makes clamping up and removing the piece a breeze by comparison. (Just need to remember to remeasure my wooden blocks now due to the extra height!)

Hello Bob, The milling machine is a Proxxon MF70. It's neither the biggest or most powerful machine on the market, accepting a maximum mill shank of 3.2mm (although in reality 3mm is the largest size mill you'll get that's commonly available). It's probably more suited to smaller more intricate work, but having said that it's comfortable, you just have to work within the machine's capabilities. I'd practised on various offcuts of mild steel and found that the best end mill to use was Proxxon's own 3mm tungsten carbide mills running at around 3/4 speed. These are a 2 flute design. Internet research will tell you that for steel 4 flute mills are better, but in my experience this wasn't the case, maybe it was the quality of the mills I was using? I don't know, but the tungsten 2 flute worked the best for me, by a decent margin. I'd cut at stages of 2mm depth at a time four times (the last cut being 1mm deep). You soon get a 'feel' for how quickly to feed the material in based on how the macine sounds and the resistance to the milling. I would say in total it took me around 60 minutes of milling, but I'd spread this over a few evenings. I couldn't do too much at once as even though the mill is in my garage, it's not the quietest thing in the world when milling! It'd almost certainly be much quicker with a bigger machine ofcourse, and I'd toyed with the idea of buying the larger FF230 mill, which has collets for 6-10mm which I suspect would easily more than half the time it takes to mill out the material, but then that mill was 3 times the price of the MF70. If I complete the project and get the bug for this, I may sell it and buy the larger mill as potentially there are a lot of candidates to be upgraded to EM2 treatment, but we'll see

It’s not the best but I’ve come a long way since the first time I picked up an iron. The best thing I did was to get a smaller tipped 25w iron for intricate work and a magnifying glass stand to assist. I also tin all my joints first now which I never used to. It’s passable, and functional. And the body will eventually hide any horror scenes as long as it works ha!

Thanks for all your help Ken, very much appreciated indeed

You wouldn’t? Are you referring to the speaker arrangement for the 47? The two 47s I have are AFAIK Bifs latest 47 sound files. I’m still working on the 37 at present, it’s not the latest 37 project (the one with the wheel slip function), but the earlier 37/0 I think it’s the west highland one, still a fine sound file in my opinion.