Diesel and electric working together???

[Crompton Karl]

So how would, in the leaf fall season, a Crompton push and assist a 442 set under power? Having experienced same, I am intrigued. The 33 was used on several pushes that day including slam stock.

I am pretty sure i have read this in one of my Crompton books, (i've got a feeling its my Class 33 'Cromptons' written by Basil Cooper ) unfortunately i won't be able to check until tomorrow or possibly later in the week but as soon as i find out i'll check and post it. As i said i believe there was no physical reason why it couldn't work with the exception of a software problem so it could have been fixed since the book was published.

Karl

 

[Sir_Clagalot]

Bang goes one idea! Basically you have an 86 at one end, and an ETH 47 or similar at the other, means you can go 'off wire' as and when needed. One spanner would be the limit of 95mph... unless the 47 could be dragged at 110mph!

 

[jopsuk]

Bang goes one idea! Basically you have an 86 at one end, and an ETH 47 or similar at the other, means you can go 'off wire' as and when needed. One spanner would be the limit of 95mph... unless the 47 could be dragged at 110mph!

A sort of "agricultural" approach to the idea of a Hybrid power train?

 

[gordonthemoron]

I believe that Danish railways run Electric & Diesel Multiple Units together, don't know if both are powered. When the train reaches the end of the wires, the EMU is decoupled and the DMU continues

 

[Sir_Clagalot]

yeah and?! Was wondering it while GC were running the shuttles. running at 110 you hardly lose any time, hence the thoughts! and HT finished using the 86 at around the same time...

 

[jopsuk]

yeah and?! Was wondering it while GC were running the shuttles. running at 110 you hardly lose any time, hence the thoughts! and HT finished using the 86 at around the same time...

I was just checking that's what you meant- driveable in either direction under either power source.

I know the 91s ran with 43s before the MK4 DVTs were ready, and from what I heard the 43s ended up having to provide motive power to stop their engines from malfunctioning. Anyone know if such a combo ever went out from under the wires?

 

[TheSlash]

Right, Southern Electricky

I'm pretty sure the 33/1's could work with 442's, especially as 442's didn't have software During a refurb, the equipment may of been removed, certainly the ETS jumpers were removed some years ago
The 33/1 and 8 VEP combination was to increase traction during leaf fall season on Haslemere bank. The idea was to give you more driving wheels during poor adhession, to increase your chances of getting over the top. The 33/1 would of been working in multiple with the unit.
2xx Southern stock could not actually work in multiple with 400 series EMU's due to different control voltages. EMUs ran on 70volt control circuits while DEMUs ran on 90volt. I'm not sure if DEMUs were compatible with Cromptons or EDs

 

[Oracle]

DEMUs and 73s had the same EE engine didn't they? Interesting thought as to whether they were compatible.

 

[Sir_Clagalot]

DEMUs and 73s had the same EE engine didn't they? Interesting thought as to whether they were compatible.

Which I belive was the same basic unit as in the majority of 08s...

 

[driver9000]

As far as I remember for the surrogate DVTs running with 91s during the testing programme was they were fitted with TDM equipment they could be switched between HST/TDM mode via a switch on the TDM cubicle and there were extra lights to indicate what the electric locomotive was doing (line light, wheelslip etc) in the cab. They did go around with their engines running at idle to provide ETS as the 91s were tested with MK3s (using a modified TGS) they couldnt provide the non-standard 415v supply, same when 89001 was used in BR days the class 43 power car was on the rear providing ETS in TDM mode.

 

[TheSlash]

DEMUs and Class 73s had the same engine, i'm not sure if it was the same for 08's. I think they might all of had the same traction motors.
The 08/09 have a reduction gearing for increased torque and a traction motor blower due to the force feed ventilation system not being practicle for constant slow speed work

 

[hairyhandedfool]

.... They did go around with their engines running at idle to provide ETS as the 91s were tested with MK3s (using a modified TGS) they couldnt provide the non-standard 415v supply....

The 43s initially had there traction motors isolated, but I think there were some issues with the engines running constantly at 1,000 rpm, and the traction motors were reinstated, I am lead to believe that the diesel and electric engines were then both used to provide tractive effort.

 

[Crompton Karl]

Ahhhhh ha! I knew I was right, there was a problem with the 33/1's and 442 multiple operation, it's been driving me crazy since this discussion started and for the life of me i could not find the book that stated the fact. So in my desperation i e-mailed Colin Marsden and wondered if he could answer the question for me, here is his reply....

Karl, Hi

Class 33/1s and Class 442s were designed to operate together using the SR style 27 pin jumper cable, supplemented with power provision from the 33s ETH jumpers. When the Class 442s were under construction at Derby I was a driving instructor at the Waterloo training school and we took a 33/1 to Derby for some early tests.

After delivery to Bournemouth and commissioning all went well, but as the 33s received minor electrical modifications so problems started to show up. I can remember one morning a 33/1 and I think 2407 were diverted from Basingstoke to Eastleigh via Andover and Laverstock we had major problems after the guard released the doors at Andover, this set of the fire bells on the 33. We eventually got the train to Eastleigh and then Bournemouth where it was found that wires in the 33 jumper did not correspond fully with the 442. After one or two more failures and problems it was agreed that 33s would haul the 442s but not try and operate in full MU format.

As designed and built it should have been totally possible, but like everything else on the BR network at the time being broken up, changes were made to one train and not the other so full inter-coupling became a major problem. The same problem befell the Class 158s and 159s!

Glad you like MLI.

Colin Marsden



Colin J. Marsden
Editor
Modern Locomotives Illustrated


Modern Locomotives Illustrated is published by TheRailwayCentre.Com Ltd
Registered in England, Company Number 04571630
Editorial Office – PO Box 45, Dawlish, Devon. EX7 9XY
Tel: +44 (0) 1626 862320
Mob: +44 (0) 7831 412755
editor@therailwaycentre.com

Visit our website at http://www.modern-locoillustrated.com <http:// www.modern-locoillustrated.com/>

Ok, so i was definately wrong with software problems, my bad sorry But I knew there was always a problem niggling away in my mind.

I don't know if this problem has been rectified, quite possibly it has especially regarding reports from other members on here regarding 33/1's and plastic pigs during leaf fall season.

All the best

Karl

 

[TheSlash]

Karl,

The problem Colin describes sounds like something i am quite familiar with!
Basically in the 27 way jumper, you had 27 wires, but only 24{i think} were active circuits, the other 3 were spare. This meant that if a wire broke in a jumper, rather than change the whole jumper, you could just swap the terminal connections and use a spare wire.
But after a while, you ran out of spare wires and then it was a free for all as to which circuit would be sacrificed. I think the loco control positive and a negative was a favourite to be used towards the end of slam door operation, i'm not sure about 20 years ago, but i should imagine something similar was going on, hence the problem
As for operating in multiple up the bank, i think the problem Colin describes is for when the 33/1 was providing auxilliary power to the 442, so when the 442 had it's shoes down, the problem didn't happen.
I hope all that makes sense, if not just say and i'll try and straighten it out abit!
:grin:

 

[AlexS]

Believe a 33/1 and EMU in multiple on the third rail can both power - TN, the picture in question was an enthusiast thing I believe, although i think it was also a service train, and therefore showing off!

A 33/1 cannot however provide electricity to the traction motors of an EMU off the third rail, without serious modification anyway!.

 

[JonathanP]

When the 91/43 was in use, the 91's had to have their software modifed to accelerate slower from a standing start, since a large diesel engine takes a longer to respond than a thyristor/straight electric. This is one reason why diesel/electric combos are rare.

 

[rail-britain]

When I worked on the sleepers these sets had genny vans
This was alright with Class 37/0 and 37/5 as there weren't any issues
One night the genny van refused to start up in Aberdeen so a Class 47/4 was sent to Dundee and the pair of 37s removed there
However, the ETH still refused to come on
I pointed out that the genny van ETH cables had to be removed from the last sleeper car, but it was decided not to do that, avoid any further delay, and leave without ETH

The only time the sleepers had both electric and diesel was during the M74 construction work
The set left as normal with a Class 87 or Class 90 up front, piloted by a Class 56 between Edinburgh and Carstairs
Both cabs had drivers and due to non-multi the Class 87 or Class 90 was pretty much dead in tow, only powering for the ETH

 

[37412]

why's there a Freightliner can in platform 3 then?

probably on route learning trips or something, you wouldn't get them on passenger work due to the lack of ETS.