Class of a re-engined loco

[truckman060473]

Ok, was just wondering about the HST class 43's which received new MTU engines but still remained "class 43". The 47's that had GM engines fitted changed to a class 57. To follow suit however, the 43's did not become 53's. Is there a reason for this?

 

[bladesman123]

Wasnt Falcon classed as 53 ?

 

[BlythPower]

The extra HP of the GM engines raised the 47s from being type 4s to type 5s hence the reclassification..?

 

[sprinterguy]

The extra HP of the GM engines raised the 47s from being type 4s to type 5s hence the reclassification..?

No, the 57s are still Type 4s.

Isn't it likely that they became class 57s because all the possible sub-classes of class 47 had already been used up?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Wasnt Falcon classed as 53 ?

Yes, although it never gained a TOPS number in service.

Class 43s were "Warship" diesel hydraulic locos, on a similar note.

 

[rail-britain]

The Class 43 has remained basically the same, just a new engine

The Class 47 and Class 57 have had significant changes including new engine, new control equipment, body shell modifications, and sanding equipment
Ironically, the tractive effort is reduced but the main benefit is the engine efficiency

 

[sprinterguy]

The Class 43 has remained basically the same, just a new engine

The Class 47 and Class 57 have had significant changes including new engine, new control equipment, body shell modifications, and sanding equipment
Ironically, the tractive effort is reduced but the main benefit is the engine efficiency

I thought that the MTU re-engining project of the HST power cars had also seen a complete rewire of the electrics carried out, as well as upgrades to the cab layout to make them more “user friendly”? The turbocharger is different too. As such, it doesn’t seem to my laymans’ eyes to be far behind the class 57 conversion in terms of work done. Although I suppose the big deciding factor is the change in power output and the large number of different components, besides the power unit, that have been altered to create the 57s.

I know the bodyshells of the 57/3 and 57/6 locos are radically different in appearance from the original class 47 design, but it doesn’t look like much has been changed on the 57/0s? I’m probably missing something critical though, just curious.

 

[truckman060473]

The extra HP of the GM engines raised the 47s from being type 4s to type 5s hence the reclassification..?

They don't have more HP. In fact the first lot (Freightliner) were lower than the 47's with a 2500Hp GM engine. Later converts had 2750Hp engines which equals the Sulzer engine in power

 

[mumrar]

Later converts had 2750Hp engines which equals the Sulzer engine in power

That's not quite correct. The Sulzer engines of the class 47s were downrated for the majority of their lifetime to 2580hp to improve reliability. 47601 and 47901 were the most powerful of the class being 3250hp and 3300hp respectively as testbed locos for the class 56 and class 58 fleets.

As for tractive effort, standard class 47s were 267kN versus class 57/0s 244kN. Freightliner did use single class 57s in place of pairs of class 47s on intermodals out of Southampton, so there is clearly something in the figures that doesn't reveal itself about their respective abilities.

 

[Lampshade]

*Technically* the 'class 43s' are 43XXX in the carriage numbering series, to reclassify them due to modifications would be a bit of a pain and not in line with the other vehicles of the HST set.

 

[junglejames]

When the 57s first appeared, it was said that despite having less horses, they were actually type 5s. I cant remember what they said now made it a type 5, but if anyone has the Rail magazine from all those years ago with the first 57 splashed across the front cover ex works, then it will probably be in there.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Oh, and the converted 47s had quite a lot more work done to them than the HSTs. They also had refurbished alternators from the class 56s.

 

[mbonwick]

I'd guess at the class 57s having a higher continuous Tractive Effort vs. the 47s, even though the 47s have a higher max. TE.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

47601 and 47901 were the most powerful of the class being 3250hp and 3300hp respectively as testbed locos for the class 56 and class 58 fleets.

That was one locomotive re-numbered; originally 47 046 it became 47 601 when fitted with a class 56 engine for testing purposes, then later fitted with a class 58 engine and re-numbered 47 901. Though if my memory serves me correctly, based on the experience with this the engines actually fitted to the 58s were slightly different and had a different designation, although basically the same core engine.

 

[WL113]

Wasnt Falcon classed as 53 ?

Yes Falcon was designated Class 53, although it only ever carried the numbers D0280 and 1200.

A pretty decent loco too by all accounts,