• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

What if? Class 35 and 52 not declared non-standard

Status
Not open for further replies.

Helvellyn

Established Member
Joined
28 Aug 2009
Messages
2,575
A historical speculative discussion. The hydraulics were all withdrawn quite quickly in the first half of the 1970s due to being regarded as non-standard. However, what if the 35s (101 Type 3 locos) and 52s (74 Type 4 locos) weren't classified as such and were retained longer. What impact do people think that would have had on other loco classes across BR?

Some assumptions I am making:
  • Class 14 (56 Type 1 locos) still declared non-standard/surplus due to trip work falling away.
  • Class 42/43 (71 Type 4 locos) still declared non-standard/surplus due to mix of engine types across the two types (plus reliability issues).
  • Class 50 (50 Type 4 locos fitted with ETH) still transferred to WR upon completion of WCML electrification to haul air-con stock.
My thoughts:
  • Fewer 47s needed on the WR due to the 52s being retained.
  • 52s might work West of England line services to Waterloo, freeing up more 50s for GWML/inter-regional services.
  • 46s start being withdrawn sooner due to 47s/50s being available to cover more services.
  • Fewer 37s needed on the WR due to 35s being retained; Type 2s (ie: 25s) displaced sooner from freight traffic - both on WR and elsewhere as more 37s available for other regions - that might see 40s disposed of earlier if 37s could pick up their duties.
  • Fewer 31s needed on the WR (31/4s still come in for ECS moves with air-con stock).
So in short I'd have expected fewer 37s/47s on the WR, plus less need for Type 2s on the WR. In turn Class 40s and 46s would be at more risk of earlier disposal, as would Sulzer Type 2s through loco cascades working out differently.

I don't think the 35s and 52s would have lasted beyond the mid-1980s as BR's loco needs continued to decline, plus presuming there was still a desire to close Swindon in the 1980s the Classes would have been surplus. My speculative history rests on an acceptance a regional fleet could have enough work (like 33s on the SR, 45s on MR, 26s/27s in Scotland) until cascades allowed other classes to displace them where still needed (which essentially became 31s, 37s and 47s).
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Uncle Buck

Member
Joined
30 Jun 2020
Messages
336
Location
Glasgow
Presumably the 52s would have been on second-order duties, such as Cardiff to Portmsouth or Waterloo to Exeter etc.
 

Gloster

Veteran Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
12,996
Location
Up the creek
I wonder if the 35 would be used on a few more cross-country services (Bristol-Portsmouth, Cardiff-Crewe, West Wales, etc.) and some of the remaining main-line secondary services, so releasing some of the smaller locos and cross-country DMUs, either for withdrawal or cascade elsewhere. The 25 might have gone even earlier.

The 52 would mainly be used on long-distance freight, such as Mendip stone trains, so reducing the demand for 47 on this and freeing them for use elsewhere. One possible long-term effect would be to delay or avoid the need for the 56.
 

Helvellyn

Established Member
Joined
28 Aug 2009
Messages
2,575
Another thought I had was if the 46s went earlier whether the Class 45/1 ETH conversions might have been avoided, with more 47s available sooner to convert to 47/4s.
 

Acathater

Member
Joined
11 Dec 2025
Messages
717
Location
NorthWest
Even if they hadn't been defined as non-standard I doubt if they would have survived much longer.
The small numbers involved would have made it unlikely for the UK licencees to carry on production of the diesels and gearboxes.
Neither Bristol-Siddeley (diesels) nor Stone (transmissions) had locomotives as a main business area.
With them giving up, all support and spares would have to come from Germany - with the usual cost and logistics issues

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Presumably the 52s would have been on second-order duties, such as Cardiff to Portmsouth or Waterloo to Exeter etc.
From memory there was a technical issue getting them into Waterloo. Third rail clearance maybe?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

I wonder if the 35 would be used on a few more cross-country services (Bristol-Portsmouth, Cardiff-Crewe, West Wales, etc.) and some of the remaining main-line secondary services, so releasing some of the smaller locos and cross-country DMUs, either for withdrawal or cascade elsewhere. The 25 might have gone even earlier.
They were used on Bristol-Portsmouth
If they were retained the class most likely to be affected was the 31 - they were the initial Hymek replacements

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Another thought I had was if the 46s went earlier whether the Class 45/1 ETH conversions might have been avoided, with more 47s available sooner to convert to 47/4s.
46s would still have been required to replace the Warships, so little change there. The Westerns were really replaced by the 50s, so the question is where instead would they go? ECML to bring the 47-hauled services up to Deltic speeds maybe?
 
Last edited:

Gloster

Veteran Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
12,996
Location
Up the creek
They were used on Bristol-Portsmouth
If they were retained the class most likely to be affected was the 31 - they were the initial Hymek replacements

Recollection is that there was a period with DMUs and DEMUs between the Class 35 being withdrawn and the Class 31 taking over in 1977. If the Class 31 weren’t being used on the Portsmouths, they could displace other locos or units elsewhere.
 

Acathater

Member
Joined
11 Dec 2025
Messages
717
Location
NorthWest
Recollection is that there was a period with DMUs and DEMUs between the Class 35 being withdrawn and the Class 31 taking over in 1977. If the Class 31 weren’t being used on the Portsmouths, they could displace other locos or units elsewhere.
Sorry I didn't make myself clear - that was meant as two distinct comments.
What I was trying to say was that the Hymeks were already in use on Bristol-Portsmouth, so it wasn't something they could be moved onto as they were already there.

The comment about the 31s being the main Hymek replacement was a general comment, not specifically about the Portsmouths
 

Harpo

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2024
Messages
3,862
Location
Newport
Although it was an era where individuals kept traction knowledge as long as they wished, South Wales had already stopped new 52 training mid 70s.

If the 52s had stayed longer, I suspect a concentration on Paddington commuters and Westbury stone (pending 56 arrivals) would have happened given aircons and HST introductions, reducing other steam heat loco demands until EH was standard.

WR 50s got quickly & increasingly hard to find work for resulting in Salisbury, Waterloo and Saltley learning them, together with the 50149 freight experiment. Canton started learning 50s, but would have had little work on them and couldn’t sustain the training programme.

A further difficulty late 70s/early 80s was Driver Assistant (DA) shortages at OOC which would have made sustaining 52/steam heat harder. A directive to book no extra OOC DA turns meant 50s appearing more in Cardiff on reliefs, or vice HST* as well as from Bristol, all with English depot drivers.

I reckon that 52s could have survived for another 5 years or so before total redundancy.

(*e.g. 0700 Padd - Cardiff circa ‘84)
 
Last edited:

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
5,476
As @Harpo highlights, you’re overlooking the role of ETH, and the increasing need for locos to be able to work air conditioned stock.

The hydraulics weren’t just non-standard, but also surplus - their final elimination from Mendip stone was before the 56s were fully present. Steam heat only designs, with no proven capability to install ETH, were always going to be very vulnerable - the more so with HSTs coming in.
 

Mike Machin

Member
Joined
19 Aug 2017
Messages
382
I wonder if the 35 would be used on a few more cross-country services (Bristol-Portsmouth, Cardiff-Crewe, West Wales, etc.) and some of the remaining main-line secondary services, so releasing some of the smaller locos and cross-country DMUs, either for withdrawal or cascade elsewhere. The 25 might have gone even earlier.

The 52 would mainly be used on long-distance freight, such as Mendip stone trains, so reducing the demand for 47 on this and freeing them for use elsewhere. One possible long-term effect would be to delay or avoid the need for the 56.
Class 35 Hymeks were the usual rostered traction for all Cardiff/Bristol to Portsmouth services between around 1968 and 1973 or thereabout. I was an avid trainspotter during this period and saw most of the class members on these services during this period.
 

Gloster

Veteran Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
12,996
Location
Up the creek
Class 35 Hymeks were the usual rostered traction for all Cardiff/Bristol to Portsmouth services between around 1968 and 1973 or thereabout. I was an avid trainspotter during this period and saw most of the class members on these services during this period.

In respect of the original question, they would continue to be used on this and other services, which would leave the stock that in reality took over from them available for use elsewhere. The majority of the class had gone by the end of 1972 and thereafter, or from the May 1973 timetable change, I believe they were largely kept on the Western Region.
 

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
7,389
Location
The Fens
The hydraulics were all withdrawn quite quickly in the first half of the 1970s due to being regarded as non-standard.
The hydraulics were withdrawn in the 1970s because the railway had reduced traffic, reduced revenue, and needed to reduce costs.

Withdrawing locomotives was one way of reducing costs. Another was to reduce the number of classified and unclassified repairs. The decisions on which classes to withdraw, and which classes to cease doing classified repairs, were driven by how to reduce costs.

Even if they hadn't been defined as non-standard I doubt if they would have survived much longer.
The small numbers involved would have made it unlikely for the UK licencees to carry on production of the diesels and gearboxes.
Neither Bristol-Siddeley (diesels) nor Stone (transmissions) had locomotives as a main business area.
With them giving up, all support and spares would have to come from Germany - with the usual cost and logistics issues
The cost of importing spares from Germany increased significantly when sterling was devalued in 1967.

As @Harpo highlights, you’re overlooking the role of ETH, and the increasing need for locos to be able to work air conditioned stock.
ETH is a factor from 1971 onwards, but prior to that, dual braking is also important. Almost all of the Westerns were dual braked, but no Hymeks had dual brakes. Decisions on air brakes and ETH had to take account of cost of conversion and future maintenance costs.

The Westerns survived as long as they did, and got air brakes, because there was a shortage of Type 4s until the HSTs and class 56s arrived. Classified repairs on Westerns had finished in 1972, apart from D1023, and keeping the fleet going after that relied heavily on cannibalising withdrawn locos for spares.

I can't find when classified repairs ceased on Hymeks. A few of them might have lasted a bit longer by cannibalising withdrawn locos for spares, but that probably would not have made much difference.

I think that, even if Hymeks and Westerns did not have a "non-standard" label stuck on them, they would still have been withdrawn at roughly the same time, because of the costs of keeping them going.
 

xotGD

Established Member
Joined
4 Feb 2017
Messages
7,872
Instead of sending boilered 37s to Eastfield and Inverness to replace Type 2s on the West Highland and Kyle/Far North, they could have moved the Hymeks to Scotland.

Can someone produce a mock-up of a Hymek in large logo with a West Highland Terrier on the side?
 

Grumpy

Established Member
Joined
8 Nov 2010
Messages
1,318
I dont understand the argument that these had to be withdrawn because they couldn't be fitted with ETH.
If the class 27's could have a small diesel engine/alternator set installed in the space of the old steam heating gear, why couldn't something similar have been an option on the 35/52s?
Similarly the 35's could have been fitted with airbrakes.
The Western Region had staff trained to drive and maintain these locos. The Midland Region had lobbied for the unnecessary class 50's-they should have been told to keep them and live with their chronic unreliability. They should have got rid of some of the lumbering class 40s, which in performance terms couldn't match the 52s, just as the 31's couldn't match the 35s.
The 52s and 35s could have had many more years as mainly freight locos- this might have been cheaper than the costly and panicky acquisition of the 56s
 

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
7,389
Location
The Fens
If the class 27's could have a small diesel engine/alternator set installed in the space of the old steam heating gear, why couldn't something similar have been an option on the 35/52s?

Any new auxiliary equipment needs space inside the locomotive. Fitting dual brakes to Westerns was an engineering challenge to find space for the compressor, only achieved by reducing the size of the fuel tank. Others mat be able to say whether there was anywhere to put a compressor inside a Hymek.

Class 27s had an ETH index of only 28, enough for a 6 car push pull set but not for a full length train. Classes 45 and 47 have an ETH index of 66, and Westerns would have needed that too. Again, a separate diesel engine and generator would have needed space, and to produce sufficient power to heat a full length train would have needed a bigger engine/generator set than in the class 27s, taking up even more space. BR did not have the funds to fritter away on difficult engineering challenges when it already had ways of fitting ETH to other classes.

Removing steam heat boilers and associated water tanks had its own challenges. It upsets the weight distribution in the locomotive, usually solved by replacing the boiler with a concrete balance weight.

The 52s and 35s could have had many more years as mainly freight locos
Only at a very high cost of imported spare parts. Other classes used spare parts made in the UK and were much cheaper to maintain.
 

Grumpy

Established Member
Joined
8 Nov 2010
Messages
1,318
Class 27s had an ETH index of only 28, enough for a 6 car push pull set but not for a full length train.
Many typical Hymek workings would have been around 6 coaches e.g. Cardiff-Southampton. Just because the 27s had an index of 28 doesn't mesn there couldn't have been other options

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Only at a very high cost of imported spare parts. Other classes used spare parts made in the UK and were much cheaper to maintain.
On the class 25v20 thread a contributor who was employed at Derby Loco works at the time commented on the high cost of spares for the Sulzer locos, these spares having to come from Switzerland. So that needn't be a strike against spares from Germany (if indeed many had to come from Germany).
 
Last edited:

Harpo

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2024
Messages
3,862
Location
Newport
this might have been cheaper than the costly and panicky acquisition of the 56s
Without the 56s, freight trains would have been stuck at around 1100 tons max for single 47s or south of 2000 tons with pairs of 37s. A single loco shifting around 1500 tons, or pairs vice triple 37s made a useful interim gain but it was privately owned 59s that broke the dial.

59s were initially limited to single 56 loads but one inadvertently ran a Westbury-Brentford on 2x56 loading. The traction inspector call to Westbury depot was brilliant old school - ‘He’s gone with 1500 tons over the maximum load…..’ ‘No! Don’t want to give him a boll…ing - I want to find out how he got on’. The eventual 5100 tonne jumbo train suggests he was probably OK.
 
Last edited:

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
7,389
Location
The Fens
Many typical Hymek workings would have been around 6 coaches e.g. Cardiff-Southampton.
In the mid 1970s there was very little of that sort of work, loco hauled trains having been replaced by DMUs.

On the class 25v20 thread a contributor who was employed at Derby Loco works at the time commented on the high cost of spares for the Sulzer locos, these spares having to come from Switzerland.
BR were stuck with Sulzer because they had so many of them, withdrawing all of them wasn't an option. And lots of them had ETH and dual brakes.
 

Acathater

Member
Joined
11 Dec 2025
Messages
717
Location
NorthWest
I guess if the Hymeks had been retained then they would have replaced Warships on Waterloo-Exeter, and probably taken over Cardiff-Crewe so the 33s would have been hijacked to somewhere up north- possibly widely distributed without the Southern's beady controlling eye on the servicing. Reliability rates would have fallen

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

On the class 25v20 thread a contributor who was employed at Derby Loco works at the time commented on the high cost of spares for the Sulzer locos, these spares having to come from Switzerland. So that needn't be a strike against spares from Germany (if indeed many had to come from Germany).
But the electricals were all British - unlike the hydraulic transmissions

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

The Midland Region had lobbied for the unnecessary class 50's-they should have been told to keep them and live with their chronic unreliability
From what I've read elsewhere the Midland DID want to keep them - they got overruled by head office
Some of the 50s were retained 'up north a lot later than they should have been
 
Last edited:

Harpo

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2024
Messages
3,862
Location
Newport
I guess if the Hymeks had been retained then they would have replaced Warships on Waterloo-Exeter, and probably taken over Cardiff-Crewe so the 33s would have been hijacked to somewhere up north
That collapses history somewhat. The Hymeks were gone even before the North & West became class 25s (76/77) let alone the 33s which arrived through cyclical diagramming in the 80s for steam heat elimination.

If the 33s had fully transferred away from the Southern, it was Scotland that had always made the strongest case for them at the BRB but it got 37/4s.
 

Taunton

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
12,281
But the electricals were all British - unlike the hydraulic transmissions
Actually the Maybach diesels in the hydraulics were built by Armstrong Siddeley in Coventry, and the Mekydro hydraulic transmissions were made by Stone in SE London. Both these were major organisations who were continuing in business. It was BR's fault that they had not put support agreements in place for spares support and pricing.
 

Helvellyn

Established Member
Joined
28 Aug 2009
Messages
2,575
Actually the Maybach diesels in the hydraulics were built by Armstrong Siddeley in Coventry, and the Mekydro hydraulic transmissions were made by Stone in SE London. Both these were major organisations who were continuing in business. It was BR's fault that they had not put support agreements in place for spares support and pricing.
Which tallies with one of the problems with the North British built Warships being what happened once North British went bust - support vanished. Sadly the hydraulics were considered non-stahdard, coupled with the inability to fit ETH tapping a main generator. (Hence my original post asking for thoughts on the 35s/52s being retained specifically for non-ETH duties, and what would have happened elsewhere if the WR hadn't had 175 Type 3s/Type 4s to replace)
 

Falcon1200

Established Member
Joined
14 Jun 2021
Messages
6,558
Location
Neilston, East Renfrewshire
it was Scotland that had always made the strongest case for them at the BRB

It has always mystified me why Class 33 was not used in Scotland, being the larger brother of the local Classes 26 and 27 and already having ETH!

The Hymeks were excellent locos, and superior to Class 31 which replaced them on various WR services, but there were 101 of the former and over 250 of the latter, plus the other factors mentioned which mitigated against their survival.
 

Taunton

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
12,281
The Hymeks were excellent locos, and superior to Class 31 which replaced them on various WR services, but there were 101 of the former and over 250 of the latter, plus the other factors mentioned which mitigated against their survival.
I remember the Hymeks first coming along, initially at Bristol and then Cardiff Canton. They were then put on South Wales to Paddington expresses, taking over from Britannias and Kings. These were traditionally the heaviest passenger services on the Western, 11 or 12 coaches, which the Hymeks, to some surprise in magazines of the era, handled very much to time. This was before either the Westerns or Class 47 had been delivered. I can remember being on Patchway platform and seeing them coming up the gradient from the Severn Tunnel at notable speed, I still recall the way that their roofline and then progressively the rest of them appeared over the crest. They were notably high performance for their stated power.
 
Last edited:

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
7,389
Location
The Fens
It has always mystified me why Class 33 was not used in Scotland, being the larger brother of the local Classes 26 and 27 and already having ETH!
The maintenance regime for class 33s was very different from other diesel locomotives, because the Southern Region only had a small fleet. Other regions had a hierarchy of periodic examinations usually labelled A, B, C, D and E. The Southern Region only had regular examinations every 3 days: the tasks that other regions did on B, C, D and E exams were instead spread over the 3 day exams. This enabled the Southern Region to keep very tight control on maintenance, but it was a way of working that could only be handled for a small fleet and was difficult to scale up on other regions.

The Southern Region traditionally kept their class 33s on very short pieces of string to make sure that they always got back to Eastleigh or Hither Green every 3 days for maintenance. It was only when the screws tightened on elimination of steam heat that their ETH capability impelled more widespread use. But that still included meeting the 3 day maintenance rule, and North Wales was about the limit that could be achieved. That involved very complicated diagramming over 3 days to go, for example, Portsmouth-Bristol-Cardiff-Crewe-Holyhead and back again.
 

Taunton

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
12,281
Which tallies with one of the problems with the North British built Warships being what happened once North British went bust - support vanished.
The answer when North British went under in 1962 was that Swindon (and even to an extent Laira) got stuck in and worked on a combination of manufacture, and also making the parts from their own Warships fit. In a way similar to what Eastleigh did with Class 33 when BRCW likewise went out of the business at the end of their construction, which there isn't so much fuss about. Swindon was aided by the original German designs from the two manufacturers there actually being designed to be completely interchangeable, and indeed it was quite common for German V200 Warships to run with one engine/transmission from each, so they were off to a good start. Eastleigh meanwhile did a fine job keeping the 33s going, all of them, they didn't have to cannibalise, I believe a few are still mainline certified and out there in use some 65 years after their builder shut down. So it's all possible.
 

Pigeon

Member
Joined
8 Apr 2015
Messages
1,123
The Hymeks (and the Warships) were at an early disadvantage for freight working because the Modernisation Plan's promise to get rid of unfitted freight working didn't actually happen; their light weight resulted in a shortage of braking ability which wouldn't have mattered if the wagons had had (vacuum) brakes as expected. This was especially significant for working unfitted coal trains down the Welsh valleys, and even the WR themselves had to admit that the 37s were better.

For passenger work it was the other way round - the 37s needed regearing to make them properly fit for passenger work, but the Hymeks would make a decent shot at King schedules.

The Westerns on the other hand were very good heavy freight locos - it had been part of the design requirement. They were heavy enough to be able to brake unfitted freights adequately in their own right, and of course acquired air brakes later. Having the three axles on each bogie mechanically interlinked made them much less vulnerable to wheelslip than the 47s. They even apparently had some capability for continuous controlled slip (possibly due to the crawl speed control function on their transmissions), which diesel-electrics didn't get until the 59s. The only thing they didn't have was multiple working, but they seemed to manage pretty well singly.

The possibility of fitting air brakes to the Warships was considered at the same time as the Westerns, but they concluded that there wasn't enough room to fit the necessary air reservoirs. This had been the more awkward part of the job on the Westerns, and they ended up with tanks stuck in all sorts of odd places (and getting in the way) to get enough capacity; with the Warships they reckoned they just couldn't do it. I would hazard a guess that with the Hymeks also being notoriously cramped inside they would have had the same sort of problem, though the compressor could probably have been fitted in place of the steam heat boiler if it came to that.

The possibility of fitting ETH to the Warships was also considered and thought to be a goer; D870 was held back for a couple of months while they modified it to accept the generators and other equipment, but then they suddenly changed their minds and none of the parts were actually fitted except the ETH jumpers. Maybe that same change of mind was why they did not also investigate fitting it to the Westerns. In this case I would hazard a guess that if it was relatively straightforward to do it to the Warships, then the Westerns would probably have been similar or a touch easier, and it might even have been possible on the Hymeks, though that really is a guess. Both Westerns and Hymeks had at least in theory capacity for the rating of the engines to be increased to partially compensate for the ETH loss.

The answer when North British went under in 1962 was that Swindon (and even to an extent Laira) got stuck in and worked on a combination of manufacture, and also making the parts from their own Warships fit. In a way similar to what Eastleigh did with Class 33 when BRCW likewise went out of the business at the end of their construction, which there isn't so much fuss about. Swindon was aided by the original German designs from the two manufacturers there actually being designed to be completely interchangeable, and indeed it was quite common for German V200 Warships to run with one engine/transmission from each, so they were off to a good start.

NBL had set up a subsidiary (called Voith Engineering, I think) to handle the manufacture of Voith transmissions, which stayed around after NBL itself had gone down the tubes and took over the supply of MAN engine spares as well. This continued manufacturing until 1970, so it wasn't until then that it became necessary to get parts from abroad.

The Warships were originally intended to have the same interchangeability as the V200s, but it never came off. NBL modified the underframe design slightly on their batch to move the transmission mounts a few inches, but Swindon kept to the original drawings and reckoned on dealing with fitting Voith transmissions to their batch if and when it came to that, and in the event it didn't (though it would not have been a huge task if they had decided to restore the interchangeability). The engines were still theoretically interchangeable and at one point Swindon decided to fit MAN engines to one of their own machines as an experiment, but then they cancelled it without actually doing anything.

There were also problems with interchangeability of more minor components, where nominally identical parts could turn out to be incompatible because of the suppliers not following the spec, so a supposedly straightforward swap could end up requiring considerable fettling to get the thing to fit.

I suppose the underlying problem must have been that the intended repairs and maintenance system for the Warships never really got properly going; it was overloaded from the start and it was a struggle just to try and keep on top of the day-to-day work, and I guess they thought that while the interchangeability might have been theoretically advantageous, trying to make use of it before the system was running as intended would just have been another problem they could do without.
 

Taunton

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
12,281
The possibility of fitting ETH to the Warships was also considered and thought to be a goer; D870 was held back for a couple of months while they modified it to accept the generators and other equipment, but then they suddenly changed their minds and none of the parts were actually fitted except the ETH jumpers.
I recall from youthful times long ago that D870 was recognisable from a distance, approaching our footbridge lair at Taunton, by its horn being in a roof housing. Wonder how that got connected with the other changes.

The last 5 in the Warship list D866-70 were back to being built at Swindon. Were they originally ordered from North British but they went out of business before they could be completed?

There were also problems with interchangeability of more minor components, where nominally identical parts could turn out to be incompatible because of the suppliers not following the spec, so a supposedly straightforward swap could end up requiring considerable fettling to get the thing to fit.

There were also 'unofficial' workarounds. I've told this one before about a North British D63xx laid aside at Taunton for a trivial part, so I'll just link to it:

 

Bevan Price

Established Member
Joined
22 Apr 2010
Messages
8,332
The hydraulics possibly arose just because "Swindon" liked to think it was still part of GWR, and wanted to be "different" to the rest of BR. Discuss, please..........Perhaps the only surprise it that the hydraulics didn't get copper-tipped exhausts. (being cynical).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top