Class 43 Scrappings?

[Phoenix]

Well one did haul two MK2's two MK3's and a 47 in the same consist once.
That's quite a good one.

 

[Techniquest]

Maybe the class (Class 43 High Speed Train power cars) do not haul freight, but then the class was not designed to. It was designed to deliver high-speed passenger services, hence the lower tractive effort compared to freight locomotives and such like.

Fact is, locomotives or not (I've already expressed my opinion on that far too many times) in one's opinion, they do what they were designed to do and still do it. Anything else in the grand scheme of things is not important.

What I would like to see discussed within this thread, however, is what class the fleet may have been provided with if the original Class 43 Warship locomotives had carried on.

 

[Darandio]

Maybe the class (Class 43 High Speed Train power cars) do not haul freight, but then the class was not designed to. It was designed to deliver high-speed passenger services, hence the lower tractive effort compared to freight locomotives and such like.

Fact is, locomotives or not (I've already expressed my opinion on that far too many times) in one's opinion, they do what they were designed to do and still do it. Anything else in the grand scheme of things is not important.

What I would like to see discussed within this thread, however, is what class the fleet may have been provided with if the original Class 43 Warship locomotives had carried on.

Very good point well made!!!

 

[O L Leigh]

Technically there is no difference between the way 43s work and the ATN 37s which had through wiring to allow the rear loco to be powered. If people can give technical reasons on why 43s are not locos then it can be an interesting debate but I´ve heard it all before and all the reasons that are given can easily be discounted (ie, one cab, don´t haul freight, through wiring, etc). I´d rather daft claims were not made but, if they are going to be made (sigh) then I´ll argue against them with good reasons!

There are huge differences between an HST and a T&T formation using, say, Cl37's. The principles of operation may be the same but the technical reasons are not.

Firstly, a Cl37 has conventional drawgear. An HST powercar does not. It's not that an HST powercar doesn't haul freight; it simply can't. Nor can it haul anything else that doesn't have a buckeye coupler.

Secondly, the HST powercar has a non-standard control system that means it can only work in multiple with another HST powercar.

Thirdly, an HST uses a non-standard power supply system that is not compatible with other LHCS. An HST powercar can supply this but a Cl37 cannot. Therefore, the Tractor can't power an HST set from it's own supply but would require a translator/generator car. Likewise, the HST powercar can't power a conventional rake of coaches.

Fourthly, the TOPS Class 43 has already been issued to the North British Warship class of diesel-hydraulics. At no time has a TOPS class number been issued twice to production classes of rail vehicle. The 43XXX number series that the HST powercars carry is a coach number series, which is why they started with 43000.

In these respects, the HST powercar is no different from, say, the PMOS coach in a Cl317. It can only work with vehicles that have similar couplers, can only provide power to other Cl317 vehicles and carries it's own number series. The only difference is that a Cl317 PMOS provides passenger accommodation where an HST powercar does not.

So, having given my reason that do not cover the lack of freight haulage, number of cabs and the need for through wiring, will you be prepared to concede that there might just be a case for seeing HST powercars as not being a loco...?

O L Leigh

 

[yorkie]

They have

I cant find the pics, but they have hauled freight.

No need to (though it would be interesting to see!), as the definition of a loco does not say they have to regularly haul freight trains. I have never seen any pics but there is of course no technical reason why 43s or 91s could not haul freight. The fact that they do not is because their performance characteristics are such that they are not suited to freight.

Modern (well, relatively - compared to the days of steam and early diesels) technology allowing DVTs and locos to work in multiple means that locos are able to work together in a way that is similar to ä multiple unit.

But a loco that is used in a fixed-formation train with a DVT or power car at the other end so no need to run round does not cease to become a loco just because it is not generally used as a light loco on its own on a regular basis.

BR originally thought that 43s would stay paired with the same rake of coaches and therefore for administrative reasons they originally counted the set as a unit. However within a few years this error was rectified. Likewise 91s and rakes of Mk4s and 90s and rakes of Mk3s on the ECML and Anglia lines respectively, may stay with the same sets for a while but will soon get split up. I have never seen a 91 working light loco or powering anything other than a Mk4 set but I would not claim that makes them units.

And what of the early use of 91s in HST rakes? The formation was 43 - Mk3s - 91. Do the 43s-are-units brigade claim that 91s became part of a DMU? I would be really interested to know

 

[O L Leigh]

What I would like to see discussed within this thread, however, is what class the fleet may have been provided with if the original Class 43 Warship locomotives had carried on.

They wouldn't.

As mentioned above, there has never been a situation when a TOPS class number has been issued twice to production classes of train. They would still have carried the 43XXX number series because it is a coach number series but they would never have been seen as a loco (as indeed they are not).

O L Leigh
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I have never seen any pics but there is of course no technical reason why 43s or 91s could not haul freight. The fact that they do not is because their performance characteristics are such that they are not suited to freight.

Correct for the Cl91 but not for HST powercars. The reason these don't haul freight is because it is impossible for them to do so because they cannot be coupled to the wagons.

But a loco that is used in a fixed-formation train with a DVT or power car at the other end so no need to run round does not cease to become a loco just because it is not generally used as a light loco on its own on a regular basis.

This is true. However, it doesn't really move us very far forward.

BR originally thought that 43s would stay paired with the same rake of coaches and therefore for administrative reasons they originally counted the set as a unit. However within a few years this error was rectified.

That is also true. In fact, the HST's were originally classed as Cl253's or Cl254's depending on how many trailers they contained, with the powercars being classified as a DMB (Driving Motor Brake) coach. The extent to which HST's could be reformed made these classifications meaningless and so they were dropped. However, it didn't automatically make the HST powercar a loco all of a sudden.

Likewise 91s and rakes of Mk4s and 90s and rakes of Mk3s on the ECML and Anglia lines respectively, may stay with the same sets for a while but will soon get split up. I have never seen a 91 working light loco or powering anything other than a Mk4 set but I would not claim that makes them units.

You'd get no argument from me there. My reasons lie elsewhere, as I have already outlined.

And what of the early use of 91s in HST rakes? The formation was 43 - Mk3s - 91. Do the 43s-are-units brigade claim that 91s became part of a DMU? I would be really interested to know

That really is beside the point. It's not been unheard of for locos to work in multiple with MU's. Why else do you think ED's and "Bagpipe Cromptons" sprouted all the extra leads and hoses below the cab windscreen? Just because the HST needed to be modifed to allow for this multiple working does not invalidate the principle.

O L Leigh

 

[90019]

And what of the early use of 91s in HST rakes? The formation was 43 - Mk3s - 91. Do the 43s-are-units brigade claim that 91s became part of a DMU? I would be really interested to know

no, because they were running separately, the whole reason for the 43 being there was to provide power to the mk3s as the 91 couldn't. Originally they were always idling, but this caused problems, and i think they were modified so they could be controlled from the 91.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I have never seen a 91 working light loco or powering anything other than a Mk4 set but I would not claim that makes them units.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=iviuwPpuscE

 

[yorkie]

Points 1./2 - GC very nearly converted their power cars to single phase power and standard couplers, would that have meant their no-different-to-317 unit power cars would have become locos? anyway steam engines do not have 100v power supplies so I do not think the power supply issue is very relevant.

Point 3 - they operated in combination with a 91 when the 91s were first delivered.

Point 4 - already discussed above!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

no, because they were running separately, the whole reason for the 43 being there was to provide power to the mk3s as the 91 couldn't. Originally they were always idling, but this caused problems, and i think they were modified so they could be controlled from the 91.

You have contradicted yourself! They were indeed modified due to problems with idling for so long so they made them work with the 91s so over 8000hp was available! Some impressive performances were logged with that power combination (not bad for an EMU...err, DMU, err E/DMU )

 

[theblackwatch]

Back in May 1974, BR decided to reclassify the HSDT as a Multiple Unit - hence the power cars being reclassified from Class 41 and renumbered into the 43xxx coaching stock series. At the same time, the coaches with which they operated were also renumbered from the normal Mk 3 series into a 4xxxx series - hardly surprising given they couldn't operate with other coaches. The production power cars, along with the coaches, were built under coaching stock lot numbers. It is easy to see why - they operated in fixed formations (unlike anything else apart from units) and the power cars were not capable of working with any other rolling stock, not even Mk 3 vehicles. This remains the case today, and the former LHCS vehicles which are now used with GC had to have substantial mods to work with HST power cars. You couldn't stick one on a rake of Mk. 1 stock at KX to do a relief to Edinburgh, and a loco hauling a set of HST coaches needed a barrier vehicle to be able to couple up to them.

Personally, I couldn't care less if some people think they are locos and others think they are units. I don't think they are either - they are a HST. If anyone thinks everything powered has to be either a loco or unit, I'd be interested to know which of these 2 categories a track machine comes under.

 

[90019]

You have contradicted yourself! They were indeed modified due to problems with idling for so long so they made them work with the 91s so over 8000hp was available! Some impressive performances were logged with that power combination (not bad for an EMU...err, DMU, err E/DMU )

No, i haven't contradicted myself.
So, if i were to modify a 158 powercar so it could run in multiple and be controlled from a 90, all 158s would then become locos?

 

[yorkie]

Correct for the Cl91 but not for HST powercars. The reason these don't haul freight is because it is impossible for them to do so because they cannot be coupled to the wagons.

Right we are getting somewhere now and it seems to be down to the couplers!

I am not an expert on couplers by any means but I do know they have adapters and 2x 43s have hauled the sleeper using an adapter on a couple of occasions I am pretty sure. I have seen pics but can not find them now.

If the couplers were changed as GC were going to do, would GCs modified 43s then be locos?

 

[O L Leigh]

Points 1./2 - GC very nearly converted their power cars to single phase power and standard couplers, would that have meant their no-different-to-317 unit power cars would have become locos? anyway steam engines do not have 100v power supplies so I do not think the power supply issue is very relevant.

That was simply because they had LH Mk3's rather than HST trailers. Had they managed to acquire the correct passenger stock to start off with these modifications would not have been considered.

As for your kettles point, that isn't what I was driving at. There were many diesel locos built for freight work that had no train supply at all but they are still locos. My point was that a power supply was provided but that it was non-standard meaning that they could only power HST trailers and not conventional LHCS.

Point 3 - they operated in combination with a 91 when the 91s were first delivered.

Only as a result of being modified. Any MU or loco could be modified to permit multiple working. It's not hard.

Point 4 - already discussed above!

Really...? I must have missed that one. Could you let me know the main points again, please?

O L Leigh

 

[theblackwatch]

Point 3 - they operated in combination with a 91 when the 91s were first delivered.

But they had to be modified in order to do this! Are you aware that it was proposed to reclassify the power cars as NPCCS stock, numbered in the 82xxx series, for this purpose?

 

[O L Leigh]

Right we are getting somewhere now and it seems to be down to the couplers!

I am not an expert on couplers by any means but I do know they have adapters and 2x 43s have hauled the sleeper using an adapter on a couple of occasions I am pretty sure. I have seen pics but can not find them now.

If the couplers were changed as GC were going to do, would GCs modified 43s then be locos?

This is getting a bit too parallel. Can we keep this down to one response per turn to avoid repetition and replication...?

However...

No, it's not just down to couplers. The non-standard coupling, power supply and multiple working arrangements found in an HST are the reasons why the powercars cannot be truly classed as locos and are more akin to MU vehicles. A Cl317 cannot haul LHCS without significant modification and nor can an HST powercar. A Cl317 is not a loco, so perhaps I should be asking why you consider an HST powercar to be one...?

I am aware of at least one occasion when a pair of HST powercars hauled an FGW service, but I have to confess that I consider this to be the exception rather than the rule. My belief is that FGW took an enormous gamble that these powercars could haul the sleeper using the emergency towbar on the basis that it's strong enough for a loco to safely drag a dead HST so why not try the system in reverse. These powercars just happened to be the closest motive power and were ready to roll, otherwise the service would have been cancelled. Luckily for FGW the gamble paid off, but they would have been seriously in the mire if something had gone wrong along the way. It really was like tacking an EMU translator vehicle onto our hypothetical Cl317 and using the resulting formation to rescue a failed loco. The theory was at least halfway sound but the only way to test it was to take an ENORMOUS risk and try it in service with a loaded passenger train.

O L Leigh

 

[Techniquest]

O L Leigh, I wish to reply to your reply to my post (man that would be a tongue-full!):

You identify correctly that the TOPS system would not allow two types of traction to have the same numbers. Only thing I disagree with is I thought this was the Rolling Stock Library but hey.

Anyway, obvious the Class 43 Warships were built, used and withdrawn before the HST came into play. Surely that means that the RSL would have withdrawn them from its systems and allowed the HST power cars to take their numbers?

Fair point re: the couplers, this is one of the reasons they cannot haul anything else without translator vehicles.

Anyway, all this seems a bit of froth over sticky plastic numbers to me. Why is it we can't all enjoy (or not, depending on personal tastes) the HST for what it is? Locos and stock, units, whatever, it's a HST and that should be the bottom line.

yorkie: The trains on the East Coast that used HST power cars as Surrogate DVTs, initially don't forget the engines in the SDVTs would idle/provide ETS only, with only the 91 providing motive power. When the SDVTs returned to normal work, however, exhaust fires were common as a result of unburnt fuel and such like in the exhausts which was caused by the long periods of idling from the engines.

This was soon rectified with TDM (or something like that) fitted to the SDVTs, which also saw them classified then as Driving Motor Luggage Van. Also, they were initially to be numbered 82xxx, this didn't happen in the end. These 91+SDVT trains were extremely powerful and set some of the RPS' fastest times ever on the East Coast, some if not all are still unbeaten.

So no, they didn't work in combination with the 91s from the outset.

Also, do remember BR had plans involving the 91s to work passenger trains in the day and freight at night (hence the rear cab).

But all this is wayyyyyyyyyy off-topic!

EDIT: Please note a couple of bits of my post were posted by others whilst doing this one, apologies for any crossover of information.

 

[90019]

Also, do remember BR had plans involving the 91s to work passenger trains in the day and freight at night (hence the rear cab).

Correct. They were going to run high speed passenger during the day, and then run slab end and haul intermodals at night

 

[O L Leigh]

Anyway, all this seems a bit of froth over sticky plastic numbers to me. Why is it we can't all enjoy (or not, depending on personal tastes) the HST for what it is? Locos and stock, units, whatever, it's a HST and that should be the bottom line.

Oh, but I do (at least to a certain extent)...!! I'm just a bit of a pedant at heart and love to lock horns with other pedants over seemingly trivial matters.

I know that HST powercars were listed as "Cl43" in my old Platform 5 spotter books when I were a lad, but I have no idea where this came from. My own feeling is that this is something that loco enthusiasts dreamt up so that they could keep track of powercars without having to pretend that they were interested in coaches. The theory about being able to reuse Cl43 following the withdrawal of the Warships doesn't hold water because no other classification has been reused no matter how long ago the last example was withdrawn. With the diesel-electric "types", the numbers progress upwards without ever going back. If the HST powercars were ever going to have been classified as "Type 4's" because of their output, then surely they should have become Cl49 as this was the next available TOPS classes that would have been appropriate for a "Type 4" loco.

So, where does this idea of HST powercar as loco really come from...?

O L Leigh

 

[Techniquest]

Oh, but I do (at least to a certain extent)...!! I'm just a bit of a pedant at heart and love to lock horns with other pedants over seemingly trivial matters.

Fair enough, being a pedant (part time one at least) is one of the greatest pleasures in life. Same for being cynical, sarcastic and countless others.

I know that HST powercars were listed as "Cl43" in my old Platform 5 spotter books when I were a lad, but I have no idea where this came from.

I have no idea where it came from, but it's been the case since before I was born, so it's just the way it is to me.

The theory about being able to reuse Cl43 following the withdrawal of the Warships doesn't hold water because no other classification has been reused no matter how long ago the last example was withdrawn.

That's all I needed to know, thank you for clarifying the situation there.

If the HST powercars were ever going to have been classified as "Type 4's" because of their output, then surely they should have become Cl49 as this was the next available TOPS classes that would have been appropriate for a "Type 4" loco.

It is indeed interesting to wonder why this wasn't the case. Maybe they knew in decades time, way into the future, we'd all be discussing it with each other. Probably not like, but hey!

So, where does this idea of HST powercar as loco really come from...?

O L Leigh

Like I say, I've only known them in reality to be classed as locomotives (I know from the forums and such like that there was a time when they weren't, obviously) so for them to be classed as units once is just that slightest bit odd to me.

Who knows, maybe one day we'll all know exactly why the power cars weren't made into Class 49 Type 4 locomotives upon the splitting up of the HSTs-as-units idea and this whole debate will be looked upon in 5 or 10 years time as a waste of time in the grand scheme of things.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Correct. They were going to run high speed passenger during the day, and then run slab end and haul intermodals at night

Indeed, although where time for any maintenance work would have come into it I don't know. It is interesting to imagine the class working freight trains though, maybe the whole railfreight scene would have been very different these days.

 

[O L Leigh]

I think there is some resistance to seeing HST's as units because of the extent to which they have been reformed over the years. This was the reason why the Cl253 and Cl254 classification for an HST set was quickly rendered meaningless and was quickly dropped. Had HST's continued with a unit classification we could have had the bizarre situation of the unit number applying to one set of vehicles one year and a completely different set the next. From an operational standpoint this is lunacy.

However, this doesn't undermine the principle. It's only because we're used to units of not much more than 4 cars in length that are not split and reformed as a matter of routine that we find the idea of an HST as a unit so alien. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. For example, 317502 and 317511 are both hybrids. Looking at the vehicle numbers of some of the other units from the same class I suspect that there may be as many as five or six hybrids in total within the same class, and yet we glibly refer to the formations by their unit numbers as if they had never been any different from the day they went out the factory gates at York.

There is little to deny that the 43XXX number range is clearly a coach series rather than any attempt to classify HST powercars as Cl43's. As much as we debate and argue over the minutiae of operation and technical specification, the final arbiter will always be the railway itself.

I must confess that I find all this sort of fluff enormously interesting. I'm no spotter for sure, but I do like to wonder what mishaps and circumstances lead to things being the way they are.

O L Leigh

 

[theblackwatch]

I know that HST powercars were listed as "Cl43" in my old Platform 5 spotter books when I were a lad, but I have no idea where this came from.

Your books can't be as old as mine - my old books list them within the formations of Class 253 & 254 units! Later versions list then in the 'High Speed Trains' section inder the heading 'DMB' (Driving Motor Brake),

So, where does this idea of HST powercar as loco really come from...?

Some time in 1988, BR decided to reclassify the HST power cars as locomotives, and the trailers as hauled stock. Mind you, the Mk 3 sleepers converted to Nightstar generator vehicles were also classified as locos at one time! :roll:

 

[90019]

Indeed, although where time for any maintenance work would have come into it I don't know. It is interesting to imagine the class working freight trains though, maybe the whole railfreight scene would have been very different these days.

I guess it wouldn't have been all of them working nights, but only some at a time, with others being maintained.

 

[43021HST]

Long live the HST the only proper BR loco in service for over 30 years.
Viva La HST

 

[90019]

Long live the HST the only proper BR loco unit in service for over 30 years.

 

[Darandio]

Some time in 1988, BR decided to reclassify the HST power cars as locomotives, and the trailers as hauled stock.

So, if BR actually reclassified them as "locomotives", then that makes them, well, locomotives then.

 

[Techniquest]

I'll say it again, WHY does it matter?!

All of us that think HSTs are glorified units, carry on and feel that way. Those of us that recognise BR's decision to classify the power cars as locomotives, I'm sure we'll all be happy enough to carry on with that belief.

Irrespective of the class number they were given, coincidentally or not given Class 43 in TOPS or whatever, it doesn't bother me. Quite frankly, discussing this issue over and over and over is about as exciting as discussing the number of rivets holding the bodysides to the rest of the frame...

HST power cars are classed as locomotives. Fact. End of.

 

[EE Type 3]

Well excuse me EE Type 3:

1.First of all the GC Power Cars do look nice
2.He can write what he wants
3.When her wrote that they are all in use he means that none are in store!

I actually do agree that the NXEC livery is not as good as GC's so please stop critising people for things they wrote!!

How was I criticising? I was merely correcting him, he didn't exactly word his post that well either.

And can't he reply for himself, or are you his spokesboy or something? :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I didn´t. EE Type 3 and O L Leigh had made the claim earlier in the thread that 43s are not locos.

Yorkie, I didn't say they were locomotives. I said they were powercars. Not a loco, not a unit, but an exception to the rule

 

[GNERman]

Sorry EE Type 3 I just dislike it when people critisise my friends (sorry)
But the GC Power Cars do like nice eh?

 

[yorkie]

Yorkie, I didn't say they were locomotives.

I didn't say you did!

 

[90019]

Yorkie, I didn't say they were locomotives.

I didn't say you did!

I said something!

 

[EE Type 3]

I said something!

And now I'm not sure what I said!

I'm actuallly surprised this thread hasn't been locked yet