Diesel Hydraulics, cascades and withdrawals

[Merle Haggard]

I direct anyone interested in the maintenance and reliability of the 'Warships' to the Irwell Press book called 'Book of the Warships'.
The 'Book of ... ' series is usually devoted to a particular class of steam loco, and this is the (I think) only diesel one.
It lists for each loco by number modifications, mileages, and works visits. In the steam loco. books, works visits are broadly at a 2 - 2 1/2 year frequency for express passenger locos, which might seem very frequent; however, the works visits of the 'Warships' over their (roughly) 10 to 14 year lives occupy threequarters of an A4 page in tiny type; typically, over 50, or about every 3 months.

 

[Helvellyn]

This all, of course, led to types such as Classes 25 and 31 being sent to the WR, causing such expressions as "couldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding".

I meant to mention this in my original post - it was obviously assumed that transferring in Type 2s was preferable to even keeping the Type 3 'Hymeks', even though there were costs in training crews and depot staff on the new types.

I think 47401-20 and Deltics were/are also (nominally) banned from working Mk 2f and Mk 3 stock.

In the case of the Deltics, the ETH would switch off on the Mk 2d stock whilst the loco took power and accelerated from a stand. Once up to about 20 mph the Air Con would kick back in (with a pronounced thud). The Mk 2e/f and Mk 3 were not modified to shut off when the loco took power in the same way as the Mk 2d - hence issues when using Deltics on the "wrong" sort of air cons.

The 'Deltics' could operate with 2F stock, and they were used a couple of times on Mark 3 stock to Oban. I think the issue with the 2Es (and certain 2Ds as delivered to the Midland Region) was that they required 800V train supply minimum, which neither the 'Generators' or 'Deltics' could supply. The Mark 2Fs had different Motor Alternator sets and thus didn't have this issue - there are various pictures of ER workings with Mark 2D/2F stock hauled by 'Deltics'.

 

[Merle Haggard]

This all, of course, led to types such as Classes 25 and 31 being sent to the WR, causing such expressions as "couldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding".

Yes, I remember hearing that comment (specifically 25s at STJ), too; but...

Their predecessors in the West country were the D6300s. The original format of the Freight Train loads Book was to specify total train weight (i.e., including loco). An additional loco enabled the train weight to be increased by 50%. I can't remember the exact figures, but these locos were authorised such limited loads that an additional loco would increase the revenue earning bit only marginally. E.g., max permitted load 220 tone, loco about 80 tons so trailing load 120 tons plus 20ton brake van. Couple an extra loco on, new load 330 tons, deduct 160 tons for locos and 20tons for brake van, new trailing load 150 tons.

There was a Exeter St D - Newton Abbot late night passenger train booked for 2xD6300s in multiple plus one more in tandem. Watched it leave St D once, but chickened out of the ride behind a triple header - what would I have dome in NA from 23.30 to 0700???

 

[36270k]

I direct anyone interested in the maintenance and reliability of the 'Warships' to the Irwell Press book called 'Book of the Warships'.
The 'Book of ... ' series is usually devoted to a particular class of steam loco, and this is the (I think) only diesel one.
It lists for each loco by number modifications, mileages, and works visits. In the steam loco. books, works visits are broadly at a 2 - 2 1/2 year frequency for express passenger locos, which might seem very frequent; however, the works visits of the 'Warships' over their (roughly) 10 to 14 year lives occupy threequarters of an A4 page in tiny type; typically, over 50, or about every 3 months.

The book of the Warships is an interesting read.
The frequent works visits tended to be the North British / MAN versions.
The Swindon/Maybach versions ran between 1.0 and 1.3 million miles in their lives.
In the 1960's all diesel locos suffered from poor quality maintenance, Class 45 in particular.
BR had a habit of using low grade engine oil and using no corrosion inhibitor in cooling systems.
Had an interesting journey behind a Class 46 to Birmingham when the loco spat all its cooling fan hydraulic oil over the windows of the leading coach.
In the 1970's there was a noticeable difference in maintenance between the Class 33 and the Class 47

 

[Taunton]

I believe part of the issue was that BR had not invested in the right mainstream equipment at the WR diesel depots, of which several were built in a short period in the early 1960s. As a result hydraulics that needed more than routine maintenance had to go to Swindon for such work. This was later rectified.

 

[CW2]

The 'Deltics' could operate with 2F stock, and they were used a couple of times on Mark 3 stock to Oban. I think the issue with the 2Es (and certain 2Ds as delivered to the Midland Region) was that they required 800V train supply minimum, which neither the 'Generators' or 'Deltics' could supply. The Mark 2Fs had different Motor Alternator sets and thus didn't have this issue - there are various pictures of ER workings with Mark 2D/2F stock hauled by 'Deltics'.

Yes, Deltics did haul all types of stock in their times, - and I was on the first trip to Oban with 55021 - but the fact remains they were officially banned from providing ETH to Mk 2E and Mk 3 stock (and I thought 2F as well - but maybe it was a particular number series?). The ETH was tapped from the main generator of the leading engine, so when accelerating from a stand the ETH would drop out, then kick back in again once the supply reached 600V (note 600V not 800V as normally supplied). When D9000 worked Birmingham - Ramsgate summer Saturday services I believe some damage was noted to the AC equipment caused by flashovers. It was a particular problem in the low-speed areas of the Southern Region where the Deltic was drooning slowly along at low power settings, so the air con was constantly switching on and off.

 

[hexagon789]

I think 47401-20 and Deltics were/are also (nominally) banned from working Mk 2f and Mk 3 stock.

In the case of the Deltics, the ETH would switch off on the Mk 2d stock whilst the loco took power and accelerated from a stand. Once up to about 20 mph the Air Con would kick back in (with a pronounced thud). The Mk 2e/f and Mk 3 were not modified to shut off when the loco took power in the same way as the Mk 2d - hence issues when using Deltics on the "wrong" sort of air cons.

No problem with Mk2f and Mk3s due to the improved Motor Alternators on these coaches, Harris neatly outlines the issue with the Mk2d and Mk2e but I'd need to look out the book to get the precise details.

 

[Whistler40145]

Presumably another reason for the demise of the Hydraulics would've been down to the electrification of the WCML north of Weaver Junction, thus making Class 50s redundant and transfer to the Western Region for further use, plus the locos having ETH equipment would've been a useful resource.

 

[hexagon789]

Yes, Deltics did haul all types of stock in their times, - and I was on the first trip to Oban with 55021 - but the fact remains they were officially banned from providing ETH to Mk 2E and Mk 3 stock (and I thought 2F as well - but maybe it was a particular number series?). The ETH was tapped from the main generator of the leading engine, so when accelerating from a stand the ETH would drop out, then kick back in again once the supply reached 600V (note 600V not 800V as normally supplied). When D9000 worked Birmingham - Ramsgate summer Saturday services I believe some damage was noted to the AC equipment caused by flashovers. It was a particular problem in the low-speed areas of the Southern Region where the Deltic was drooning slowly along at low power settings, so the air con was constantly switching on and off.

Can't have been banned from 2f stock (and I've never seen anything to say they were banned from Mk3s), from 1974/5 the Eastern Region took delivery of a batch of 2f vehicles which went into the sets for the best trains augmenting the 2d stock. Certainly the Scotsman, Talisman and Silver Jubilee all had 2f stock and all were Deltic hauled. The carriage working books of the mid/late 1970s note "Air-Conditioned Mk2D/F stock", there are no specifically Mk2d only workings

 

[delt1c]

Presumably another reason for the demise of the Hydraulics would've been down to the electrification of the WCML north of Weaver Junction, thus making Class 50s redundant and transfer to the Western Region for further use, plus the locos having ETH equipment would've been a useful resource.

It was always the intention to transfer the 50’s to WR on electrification of the WCML to Glasgow

 

[Merle Haggard]

Had an interesting journey behind a Class 46 to Birmingham when the loco spat all its cooling fan hydraulic oil over the windows of the leading coach.

That seemed to be an insoluble problem. That particular oil, if splashed onto cars, attacked the paintwork causing brown or black spots that were ingrained into the paint. This was relevant to Automotive trains hauled by Class 47s (which also seemed to routinely eject the cooling fan hydrostatic oil into the airflow) and claims resulted until protection, in the form of basic roofs, were provided on Cartics. Interestingly, the traction depot concerned did record the consumption of the different oils by loco number and, as an aside, the particular oil used was very expensive, but, curiously, no action was taken. As was often the case, the problem remained but was ameliorated laterally.

On the subject of the Hydraulics, sometimes criticism is made of the high maintenance costs of these locos, but I am sceptical for the following reason. In the early days of sectorisation, the CM&EE provided the freight business with detailed cost analysis. The locomotive fleet had been sectorised by loco number, and naturally the freight Class 47 pools consisted entirely of non ETH locos. Looking at the impressively detailed costings produced for the pools, I noticed that a there was an item 'ETH' against which a tidy sum was allocated. I had the temerity to speak to my CM&EE colleagues, in the new world of direct communications, to ask why we were being charged for this when none of our locos had the equipment to be told 'You don't expect our very busy fitters to record detail like what loco number they are working on, do you?' Sometimes, there is no answer to a question, sometimes there are so many that you don't know where to start; I didn't reply. Bearing in mind that this response was from the Western Region CM&EE it does seem surprising that higher maintenance costs were ever identified.

 

[Clarence Yard]

You were on their turf & getting fobbed off - all work on locos was recorded to loco in those days. That was also the basis of the re-incentive bonus scheme and you then completed the detailed period 74/9 output statement which went to each regional CM&EE. I arrived on the WR in 1987 and it was really eye opening to see how the CM&EE did their costing, which used a lot of averaging and jam spread overheads.

Getting back to the twin engined Hydraulics, they used a different lub oil to normal diesel locos, actually the same as used in the Deltics and later on in the HSTs, in my day on the ER it was called Talona 972.

 

[CW2]

Can't have been banned from 2f stock (and I've never seen anything to say they were banned from Mk3s), from 1974/5 the Eastern Region took delivery of a batch of 2f vehicles which went into the sets for the best trains augmenting the 2d stock. Certainly the Scotsman, Talisman and Silver Jubilee all had 2f stock and all were Deltic hauled. The carriage working books of the mid/late 1970s note "Air-Conditioned Mk2D/F stock", there are no specifically Mk2d only workings

I stand corrected. The restrictions were listed in the Sectional Appendices of the time - but I don't seem to have them any more.
Deltics also occasionally worked Edinburgh - Carstairs portions, which were formed of LM stock which could include Mk 2E/F and Mk 3. The ban on using them with this stock was quietly ignored, when it suited.
Anyway, enough of this Deltic piffle - I feel I'm guilty of hijacking a Hydraulic thread unintentionally. Sorry!

 

[hexagon789]

I stand corrected. The restrictions were listed in the Sectional Appendices of the time - but I don't seem to have them any more.
Deltics also occasionally worked Edinburgh - Carstairs portions, which were formed of LM stock which could include Mk 2E/F and Mk 3. The ban on using them with this stock was quietly ignored, when it suited.
Anyway, enough of this Deltic piffle - I feel I'm guilty of hijacking a Hydraulic thread unintentionally. Sorry!

I wasn't that I wanted to prove you wrong but I just knew from a discussion group, another forum and having seen the carrusge working books that Mk2Fs were used regularly and without modification with Deltics, quite useful for modelling 1974-onwards ECML formations given the availability of decent Mk2fs now.

But as you say...back to the glorious Hydraulics!

 

[randyrippley]

this page describes the problems associated with the various Maybach and MAN engines used in the hydraulics and class 21

Engines used in BR Western Region diesel-hydraulic locomotives

Western Region diesel-hydraulic locomotive engines.

www.greatwestern.org.uk

 

[Taunton]

E.g., max permitted load 220 tone, loco about 80 tons so trailing load 120 tons plus 20ton brake van. Couple an extra loco on, new load 330 tons, deduct 160 tons for locos and 20tons for brake van, new trailing load 150 tons.

Freight book must have been written a bit unthinkingly. D63xx were commonly assigned in their earlier years as pilots on passenger services, between Newton Abbot and Plymouth, both for steam locos initially and for diesels. A passenger train with say 13 on (especially summer Saturdays) would have the D63xx added to the front, and it certainly gave an added pull up the steep Dainton and Rattery banks.

 

[edwin_m]

Freight book must have been written a bit unthinkingly. D63xx were commonly assigned in their earlier years as pilots on passenger services, between Newton Abbot and Plymouth, both for steam locos initially and for diesels. A passenger train with say 13 on (especially summer Saturdays) would have the D63xx added to the front, and it certainly gave an added pull up the steep Dainton and Rattery banks.

Particularly for lightweight locos like the hydraulics, the governing factor might be providing enough braking to control an unfitted freight on the descents. That's one reason underpowered heavyweights like the Class 40 lasted so long.

 

[Taunton]

I understood that was the reason why the WR, having got the Hymeks (one of the best hydraulic designs) got equal numbers of EE Type 3 as well, simplistically 120 tons on 6 axles instead of 80 tons on 4 axles, and based in South Wales where they handled the substantial amount of unbraked coal traffic from The Valleys (as well as much else). Loaded trains downhill, needed as much brake control as haulage of the empties back up.

Now it long seemed a bit surprising to me, as this traffic had long been handled by 0-6-2 tank engines. These had four braked axles and were about 80 tons as well. Always fill the water tanks for maximum weight on wheels before setting off downhill, apparently. But the EE locos did allow for heavier trains.

 

[Richard Scott]

Particularly for lightweight locos like the hydraulics, the governing factor might be providing enough braking to control an unfitted freight on the descents. That's one reason underpowered heavyweights like the Class 40 lasted so long.

And, apart from issues with bogie cracks the 40s were very reliable?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Oct 2020 ==

I understood that was the reason why the WR, having got the Hymeks (one of the best hydraulic designs) got equal numbers of EE Type 3 as well, simplistically 120 tons on 6 axles instead of 80 tons on 4 axles, and based in South Wales where they handled the substantial amount of unbraked coal traffic from The Valleys (as well as much else). Loaded trains downhill, needed as much brake control as haulage of the empties back up.

I had heard that as well. Maybe if we'd had fewer unfitted freight trains may have seen more Hymeks built and they'd have lasted longer? Surely their 4 axles, which were effectively coupled together, gave them good pulling power as wheelslip almost impossible unless all four let go? What were their running costs like compared to a 37?

 

[hexagon789]

Particularly for lightweight locos like the hydraulics, the governing factor might be providing enough braking to control an unfitted freight on the descents. That's one reason underpowered heavyweights like the Class 40 lasted so long.

Even accounting for the unbraked pony trucks?

 

[edwin_m]

Even accounting for the unbraked pony trucks?

I don't think there was much weight on the pony trucks, they were probably there mostly to steer the powered axles into curves. However on checking some figures I realised I'd forgotten how bad the brakes were on a 40, so maybe that wasn't a reason to keep them after all.

 

[Richard Scott]

I don't think there was much weight on the pony trucks, they were probably there mostly to steer the powered axles into curves. However on checking some figures I realised I'd forgotten how bad the brakes were on a 40, so maybe that wasn't a reason to keep them after all.

Seems odd as the peaks had a much larger brake force, I believe, with essentially the same design of bogie, were the brake cylinders different?

 

[hexagon789]

I don't think there was much weight on the pony trucks, they were probably there mostly to steer the powered axles into curves. However on checking some figures I realised I'd forgotten how bad the brakes were on a 40, so maybe that wasn't a reason to keep them after all.

That's what came to my mind - their reputation for poor brakes to the point that when parked out of service they had to be chocked as the handbrake was insufficient to hold the loco.

 

[randyrippley]

Particularly for lightweight locos like the hydraulics, the governing factor might be providing enough braking to control an unfitted freight on the descents. That's one reason underpowered heavyweights like the Class 40 lasted so long.

40s lasted so long simply because they were less problematic than the Sulzer engined type 4 designs
Sulzers had terrible problems with crankcases, crankshafts and conrods - arguably the Barrow built Sulzers were worse than the NBL built MANs

 

[Grumpy]

Surely the brakes comment is a red herring. If you needed more braking force then stick on a brake tender-plenty of photos of diesel electrics showing brake tenders attached. Longer term the modernisation plan had put in hand the run down of the unfitted wagon fleet.

It was barmy spending millions on re-engining so many Brush type 2's and rushing into buying the troublesome class 56, when the Hymeks and Westerns were already paid for and crews and engineers trained.

 

[randyrippley]

Surely the brakes comment is a red herring. If you needed more braking force then stick on a brake tender-plenty of photos of diesel electrics showing brake tenders attached. Longer term the modernisation plan had put in hand the run down of the unfitted wagon fleet.

It was barmy spending millions on re-engining so many Brush type 2's and rushing into buying the troublesome class 56, when the Hymeks and Westerns were already paid for and crews and engineers trained.

Except that there wouldn't have been any service support from Maybach for the Bristol-built versions of the Hymek and Western engines. Hawker-Siddeley had shut down diesel manufacture, and as the drawings had been anglicised metric parts made in Germany would not have fitted. They would have had to be rebuilt with Paxman engines - as used in the class 29 - which probably would not have been a reliability improvement. And even then you would still have had the problem with no support for the NBL built Voith transmissions in the Westerns
Re-engining the class 30 with a known reliable engine from a UK design would easily have seen the safer option

 

[CW2]

With the benefit of hindsight:
- Steam should have been phased out more gradually
- There should have been more time spent on trialling the prototype diesels, to work out what was worth pursuing and what should be discarded
- Westerns and Hymeks should have been retained on the WR for longer
- The 1974 post WCML electrifiction cascade of class 50s to the WR could have been avoided, with the 50s taking over North Wales / Trans Pennine / Cross Country services instead, allowing 47/4s to go to WR for the new air-con Mk 2 stock.
- Fewer class 25s and class 31s should have been built
- Money saved by building fewer diesels should have been used on electrification

 

[Merle Haggard]

Surely the brakes comment is a red herring. If you needed more braking force then stick on a brake tender-plenty of photos of diesel electrics showing brake tenders attached.

My recollection is that brake tenders were only used on the LM Midland Lines * and in the North East. Not sure why, but I never saw any on the W.R..

* and, at the end of their use, on the A.C. hauled section of Toton-Willesden via Northampton - after a runaway.

 

[Grumpy]

Except that there wouldn't have been any service support from Maybach for the Bristol-built versions of the Hymek and Western engines. Hawker-Siddeley had shut down diesel manufacture, and as the drawings had been anglicised metric parts made in Germany would not have fitted. (SNIP) And even then you would still have had the problem with no support for the NBL built Voith transmissions in the Westerns
Re-engining the class 30 with a known reliable engine from a UK design would easily have seen the safer option

I dont understand the comment re service support. Maybach supplied standard components for the first batch of engines so why do you imply parts made in Germany wouldn't fit? Similarly with approx 250 Maybach engines on the Western why wouldn't they wish to supply parts for what should have been a profitable market, when they were already making the parts for similar engines used on German railways and elsewhere? If they weren't interested then I am sure small UK engineering firms could have been interested ie as they do for car parts
Similarly Voith.

 

[randyrippley]

I dont understand the comment re service support. Maybach supplied standard components for the first batch of engines so why do you imply parts made in Germany wouldn't fit? Similarly with approx 250 Maybach engines on the Western why wouldn't they wish to supply parts for what should have been a profitable market, when they were already making the parts for similar engines used on German railways and elsewhere? If they weren't interested then I am sure small UK engineering firms could have been interested ie as they do for car parts
Similarly Voith.

The British made engines and transmissions would have been built to Anglicised drawings using imperial sizes and threads, not the metric of the German made ones.
The cost of retooling the German production lines for a relatively small number of machines would have been prohibitive