Cl 37s - reliability record

[70014IronDuke]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

In another thread on the board, regarding Cl 37s on the new LHCS Cumbrian Coast services, 47802, who seems to be a stalwart poster in this group, refers to these venerable locomotives and their MkII stock as 'junk' - amongst other generally negative descriptions.

This got me thinking. Of course, these locos are now 50 years old (and more, I guess, in some cases), and I have no idea of their maintenance challenges today, nor how they have been attended to in recent decades. But I seem to remember that back in the 70s, they were, with the Cl 20s, the most reliable machines BR had. IIRC, on BR (W) we had about 50,000 miles per casualty with the Cl 37s.

EDIT - This is from memory. I may be wrong. Or it might have been this on a weekly basis - some weeks! Whatever, I do know these locos had very nice figures. I believe the 47s were more like 10,000 miles per casualty.

Of course, in the main they were then trundling around S Wales on goods traffic. Does anyone know how the WR compared to the ER record? The ER, particularly the GE, used them on InterCity passenger trains to Kings Lynn and I think on Norwich services. (OK, there was a period, in the 60s, when the WR used them in tandem on Bristol/Swansea-Paddington trains - but it was short lived.)

Does anyone know of good reason why they may be less reliable today - apart from age? I assume there are more systems that could go wrong than in the 60s and 70s, but on the other hand, the fitters and electricians should know them inside out by now.

I didn't want any historical discussion on reliability to get lost in a modern-day squabble about what should and should not be used on the Cumbrian Coast services - hence my starting a new thread on this subject.

xxxx

 

[richieb1971]

I don't recall hearing much about 37's failing. I do however know there are less than there were and that the average 37 pulls lesser rakes than they used to.

 

[306024]

On the GE the Hook Continental was the biggest passenger load for a 37 for quite a few years. 11 coaches (including 2 BGs) it took the wind out of a 37 climbing the 1:80 Brentwood bank. Both Stratford and March had an allocation of 37s for passenger work.

Pairs of 37s worked on the Felixstowe branch hauling freightliners in the early 80s for a while, and single 37s were a frequent sight on Ripple Lane -Thameshaven oil trains. The most impressive sight though was 3x37 on the South Wales Iron Ore trains back in the late 70s.

Can't recall much trouble with them compared to other motive power round these parts, but Stratford knew how to maintain a locomotive. As for today most fitters that used to look after them will be long retired.

 

[47802]

I don't object to Loco Hauled stock totally although it does strike there is a reason why diesel loco hauled trains have largely disappeared over the past 25years, most regular Loco hauled trains that have been reintroduced have been with fairly new locomotive ie 67's and now 68's, not 50 year old loco's on intensive stop start diagrams.


Now if 37's and MK2 coaching are going to work the Cumbrian coast then they need to demonstrate that they are at least as reliable as the units they have replaced otherwise its not really very satisfactory for regular users of the train service.

There were too periods in the late 80's and early 90's where I used the train as a commuter and the reliability on both the routes concerned was so poor that it was causing major disruption my work and in the end I made other transport arrangements.

As a rail enthusiast yes its great to have a ride on a 37, but as regular rail traveller I want a train that does what it says in the timetable

 

[DarloRich]

As a rail enthusiast yes its great to have a ride on a 37, but as regular rail traveller I want a train that does what it says in the timetable

Which is a fair point - however is it better to have no trains due to insufficient units or some trains that are a bit slower?

 

[47802]

Which is a fair point - however is it better to have no trains due to insufficient units or some trains that are a bit slower?

Well OK if the 37's were covered by units instead then yes that would have left fewer units for strengthening of other service as a result of the 319 cascade and the need for some 156's for TPX, but I suspect if Northern use the 319's to the maximum later in the year even if it means a temp axing of through Liverpool - Blackpool services, the effect should be largely mitigated.

Essentially DRS need show they can provide a reliable solution otherwise I can see it being axed, previously we had the Taunton 57 shuttles which proved to be unsatisfactory reliability wise.

 

[70014IronDuke]

On the GE the Hook Continental was the biggest passenger load for a 37 for quite a few years. 11 coaches (including 2 BGs) it took the wind out of a 37 climbing the 1:80 Brentwood bank. Both Stratford and March had an allocation of 37s for passenger work.
....

I had forgotten the Hook Continental, which is funny, as I used it a number of times. I should imagine that a Cl 37 would struggle to outperform a Britannia on that. But struggling with near 400 tonne load on Brentwood Bank is not a failure (unless there was a flashover or some such). It's just an underpowered locomotive for the road and load.
Which is why BR(W) tried them in pairs. (I dont think they were really set up for running at much over 80 mph in practice.)

The GN also used them on the MAster Cutler during the mid60s, I recall.

My point was that I don't know if a lot of relatively intesive/high-speed (for the time) passenger use would bring down their reliability. It did, for example, with the Cl 27s on Glasgow-ED, and with 45s on the Midland, compared to the 44s, which trundled around on mineral trains - on which casualties were a real rarity.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Which is a fair point - however is it better to have no trains due to insufficient units or some trains that are a bit slower?

I don't think 47802 is too worried if Barrow - Sellafield or wherever is 10 mins slower with LHCS, I think he wants to be reasonably sure it will get there. Which is a reasonable argument - only he has been rather derogatory regarding the Mk2 stock as well - when there is evidence that the regular punters actually like these trains.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't object to Loco Hauled stock totally although it does strike there is a reason why diesel loco hauled trains have largely disappeared over the past 25years,
...........

I thought the reason for that is well known, viz, locomotive have much higher axle loadings than DMUs, which leads to much higher track access charges.

I don't think locos in themselves should be more prone to failure, though of course, you can usually keep a DMU on the road, or at least avoid it blocking the road, if it loses one engine in four.

 

[D6975]

I've only had 2 37's fail on me.
First was 37410 on the climb from Connel Ferry towards Oban in December 1988.
Second was 37423 north of Silecroft last week.
Not bad considering how many miles I've done behind them.
Worst classes for failures for me were HG maintained 33s (never had an EH one fail on me) on a par with class 47s both with 4 failures.
Worst of all types of traction is HSTs, lost count of the number of times I've been on an HST running on one power car. At least it still gets you there though, albeit a little later than expected.

 

[Clarence Yard]

1972 ER casualty figures.

The 190 ER cl.37 averaged 40962 miles per casualty that year. The 200 (average) ER cl.47 reached 13090 miles per casualty. It took an average of 282 days for a cl.37 to fail and an average of 70 days for a cl.47 to fail.

The most reliable of the ER fleet at the time were the Tyne Dock 24's and the cl.20 fleet were second, way ahead of the rest.

Direct comparisons between classes should be avoided as the duty cycles were completely different and there were far more cl.47 on passenger duties where the casualty threshold was only 5 minutes, way under the freight threshold which was 10 or 15 minutes iirc.

The main reason loco hauled trains bit the dust was the cost of maintaining the locos. Modern DMUs are much cheaper to maintain, both in men and materials.

 

[70014IronDuke]

1972 ER casualty figures.

The 190 ER cl.37 averaged 40962 miles per casualty that year. The 200 (average) ER cl.47 reached 13090 miles per casualty.
...

These figures are more or less exactly in line with the WR ones I remember in 75 (give or take 40 years of memory!)

Which, if correct, means Cl 37 reliability did not suffer from use on faster passenger workings.

The most reliable of the ER fleet at the time were the Tyne Dock 24's ...

Now that is interesting - because going up to Consett would have been one hell of a slog, so no easy running involved. All, presumably, part of a small pool maintained by Gateshead. Not so different from the Cl 44s, when all at Toton.

I guess they would not have had steam heat boilers though, which were invariably one major cause of bad figures?

Direct comparisons between classes should be avoided as the duty cycles were completely different and there were far more cl.47 on passenger duties where the casualty threshold was only 5 minutes, way under the freight threshold which was 10 or 15 minutes iirc.

This was why I was interested in ER Cl 37s - to compare and contrast with the WR, which did not, in the main, use them on passenger work.

The main reason loco hauled trains bit the dust was the cost of maintaining the locos. Modern DMUs are much cheaper to maintain, both in men and materials.

Is this because they are more modular, eg you whip out the underfloor engines and replaced with refurbished?

 

[Clarence Yard]

It is all do with the kit. Less of it, it goes longer between exams/overhauls and on any DMU (old or new) you can get at it easier. On modern DMUs you also have better fuel range so you don't need to service them as much.

On the subject of the Consett 24's, this was a classic case of a small dedicated fleet on a known, tightly controlled duty cycle, based around one depot.

 

[CosherB]

The fact we still have 50 year old 37's in use is probably due to the fact that BR abandoned the Class 38 project ...... which themselves would now be 20-odd years old.

 

[12CSVT]

The fact we still have 50 year old 37's in use is probably due to the fact that BR abandoned the Class 38 project ...... which themselves would now be 20-odd years old.

Probably not far wrong to say that the class 38 project became the class 60 project (and 37901 to 37904 were fitted with experimental Mirlees MB275T engines, later fitted to the class 60s). It was these type 5s which accounted for many of the class 37 withdrawals in the 1990s.