What did for the 45s?

[Blade Fisher]

But this was 1981, when the signal box was still open. Even if the platforms were bi-directional throughout then, you still must not have two trains (two light locos count as two trains) in one section.

I think you lost what I was saying there. Now that I know they are/were bi-directional the issue would not have arisen !

 

[MadMac]

Key question is when was the ban actually imposed - It might have been later than 1981.



The ban applied to the Glasgow Central station area and approaches only, no issue with Peaks going to Shields Depot or Corkerhill, which they could access from Barrhead without having to go via Central, via the Terminus Curve.

I started in Glasgow Control in 1984 and can recall one occasion when Carlisle, presumably as nothing else was available, sent down a Peak on one of the morning trains; Locos were changed at Barrhead and the Peak did not get to Central! Quite possibly a similar loco change took place on a returning Up train, to get the Peak back south.

The ‘ban’ was no later than 1980. However…..

I have a recollection of a Peak ending up in Central post-ban. Apparently, the Barrhead signalman knew of the ban and on seeing it pass his box, he called Central who made sure to put it in platform 9 which is a fairly straight run in. Was the Kilmarnock picture possibly a consequence of this?

 

[Blade Fisher]

The ‘ban’ was no later than 1980. However…..

I have a recollection of a Peak ending up in Central post-ban. Apparently, the Barrhead signalman knew of the ban and on seeing it pass his box, he called Central who made sure to put it in platform 9 which is a fairly straight run in. Was the Kilmarnock picture possibly a consequence of this?

Now you are talking. That makes sense. Just cannot see all this faffing around with loco changes blah de blah. If it was a rail tour the gricers would love it but it was a normal service train and with all the palaver of changing locos it would either have to leave early (unlikely as half the punters would miss it) or it would be running about 30 minutes down.

That's why in an earlier post i wondered why they couldnt, going forward, give a ban exemption for say one 'easy access' platform. The only other possibility is going to Queen Street but access would be a sod from the south.

 

[D1511]

The ‘ban’ was no later than 1980.

This is my pic from July 1979 and it's certainly not in place then

 

[Blade Fisher]

This is my pic from July 1979 and it's certainly not in place then
View attachment 184143

I wonder what that 26 was on? As for the Peak in the distance, they've just realised ! You can't come in here with that.

 

[hexagon789]

I wonder what that 26 was on?

Probably a Carlisle to Glasgow via Dumfries

 

[D1511]

I wonder what that 26 was on? As for the Peak in the distance, they've just realised ! You can't come in here with that.

Probably a Carlisle to Glasgow via Dumfries

I think it was just ECS from Polmadie and the Peak was going to back on to it.....so likely a Glasgow - Nottingham. Notebook of the day has long since disappeared in the intervening 46 years!

 

[MadMac]

Key question is when was the ban actually imposed - It might have been later than 1981.



The ban applied to the Glasgow Central station area and approaches only, no issue with Peaks going to Shields Depot or Corkerhill, which they could access from Barrhead without having to go via Central, via the Terminus Curve.

I started in Glasgow Control in 1984 and can recall one occasion when Carlisle, presumably as nothing else was available, sent down a Peak on one of the morning trains; Locos were changed at Barrhead and the Peak did not get to Central! Quite possibly a similar loco change took place on a returning Up train, to get the Peak back south.

The ‘ban’ was no later than 1980. However…..

I have a recollection of a Peak ending up in Central post-ban. Apparently, the Barrhead signalman knew of the ban and on seeing it pass his box, he called Central who made sure to put it in platform 9 which is a fairly straight run in. Was the Kilmarnock picture possibly a consequence of this?

 

[Blade Fisher]

I think it was just ECS from Polmadie and the Peak was going to back on to it.....so likely a Glasgow - Nottingham. Notebook of the day has long since disappeared in the intervening 46 years!

Id say that is highly likely. Cant see that being a Shotts line service from Edinburgh, but you never know !

 

[MadMac]

Id say that is highly likely. Cant see that being a Shotts line service from Edinburgh, but you never know !

I‘ve told the story before of travelling on a rake of Mark 3s hauled by a 47 on an all-shacks Shotts line service vice a failed DMU.

 

[Blade Fisher]

I‘ve told the story before of travelling on a rake of Mark 3s hauled by a 47 on an all-shacks Shotts line service vice a failed DMU.

Cool ! A bit like the time once when I was flying back from Southampton to Glasgow Flybe once, plane failure and replaced by a luxury charter jet. Impressed

 

[Harpo]

with all the palaver of changing locos it would either have to leave early (unlikely as half the punters would miss it) or it would be running about 30 minutes down.

Pre-privatisation, loco changes and run-rounds were generally, and generously, allowed 10 minutes in most schedules but could be done much quicker especially if the layout was useful for it, such as having a facing spur to hold the relief loco. The steam/electric loco swap at Rickmansworth was famously so fast it was said it didn’t seem to be much longer than other station stops.

 

[Magdalia]

Just cannot see all this faffing around with loco changes blah de blah. If it was a rail tour the gricers would love it but it was a normal service train and with all the palaver of changing locos it would either have to leave early (unlikely as half the punters would miss it) or it would be running about 30 minutes down.

When I first used to watch trains at Cambridge, in the early 1970s, Liverpool Street-Kings Lynn trains had 3 minute stations stops at Cambridge. Occasionally a loco change would be required, usually because of failure of the loco's steam heat boiler. The train would be given a clear run in, so that it could arrive 1 or 2 minutes early, and the loco change would be completed in time for a right time departure.

 

[alexl92]

A slighy deviation from topic but it was mentioned on Page 1 that BR was short of Type 4s when the 45s were withdrawn, meaning 31s ended up covering duties. Why would this have fallen to a type 2 CLass 31 and not to a type 3 such as a 37?

 

[Sun Chariot]

A slighy deviation from topic but it was mentioned on Page 1 that BR was short of Type 4s when the 45s were withdrawn, meaning 31s ended up covering duties. Why would this have fallen to a type 2 CLass 31 and not to a type 3 such as a 37?

Pairs of 31/4 provided sufficient ETH index, whereas a single 37/4 didn't; and in the mid 1980s, the 37/4s were allocated to Eastfield and Inverness depots and to Cardiff Canton depot for services in those areas. I can't recall if any 37/4 allocated to Bristol Bath Road.

 

[Hairy Bear]

Even in multiple, only a single 31 will be supplying the ets, they were rated at 66index, so quite sufficient for long trains.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

I would speculate that the Brush equipment was inferior in the first place given that the younger 46s were easily outlived by the older 45s.

Why didn't the 46s get the ETS modifications instead of the 45s? The 46s are electrically very similar to 47s so there would have been less design work, and the size of the class would have meant they could have just converted all of them, rather than splitting them into ETS and non ETS variants as happened with the larger 45 fleet.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jul 2025 ==

Even in multiple, only a single 31 will be supplying the ets, they were rated at 66index, so quite sufficient for long trains.

Think the index of 37/4 is much lower - 31 or something around that?

 

[edwin_m]

Pairs of 31/4 provided sufficient ETH index, whereas a single 37/4 didn't; and in the mid 1980s, the 37/4s were allocated to Eastfield and Inverness depots and to Cardiff Canton depot for services in those areas. I can't recall if any 37/4 allocated to Bristol Bath Road.

The 37/4s had ETH fitted specifically for routes that weren't cleared for a 47 or other heavier loco, and the number converted was very limited so there probably weren't any available if a spare loco was needed at short notice. Also, being Type 3, they would have had less performance than a 47 and also (feeble reputation of the 31 notwithstanding) than a pair of 31s.

Why didn't the 46s get the ETS modifications instead of the 45s? The 46s are electrically very similar to 47s so there would have been less design work, and the size of the class would have meant they could have just converted all of them, rather than splitting them into ETS and non ETS variants as happened with the larger 45 fleet.

I'd guess for a similar reason to why they 46s were withdrawn first - the 45s were more reliable.

 

[Harpo]

Even in multiple, only a single 31 will be supplying the ets,

One to heat and one to haul

 

[Magdalia]

A slighy deviation from topic but it was mentioned on Page 1 that BR was short of Type 4s when the 45s were withdrawn, meaning 31s ended up covering duties. Why would this have fallen to a type 2 CLass 31 and not to a type 3 such as a 37?

By the time that class 45/1 were being withdrawn, more than half of the class 47 fleet were ETH fitted.

Class 31/4s were covering for unavailable class 47/4s not withdrawn class 45/1s.

Much of the need for class 45/1 disappeared when InterCity redeployed the HST fleet to include covering most Midland Main Line trains.

a single 31 will be supplying the ets, they were rated at 66index, so quite sufficient for long trains

All of class 31/4, class 45/1, and most class 47/4 had the same Brush dual wound alternator for ETH and auxiliaries. Their ETH index was 66, enough for 13 aircons.

Think the index of 37/4 is much lower - 31 or something around that?

The 37/4s had ETH fitted specifically for routes that weren't cleared for a 47

Class 37/4s came much later, and were specifically for eliminating steam heat in Scotland. The trains were not aircon, or very long, so the locos did not need a high ETH index.

 

[Harpo]

Class 37/4s came much later, and were specifically for eliminating steam heat in Scotland.

And Wales.

The trains were not aircon,

The year-round Euston-Aber and the Fort William sleeper were though.

 

[Magdalia]

And Wales.

The year-round Euston-Aber and the Fort William sleeper were though.

It was the elimination of double manning on the trains in Scotland that were still steam heated that drove the case for the class 37/4s. Without that class 37/4 would not have happened.

When class 37/4 was on the drawing board the Euston-Aberystwyth aircon service didn't exist. It was something that only became possible once class 37/4 had been approved.

 

[Blade Fisher]

Pre-privatisation, loco changes and run-rounds were generally, and generously, allowed 10 minutes in most schedules but could be done much quicker especially if the layout was useful for it, such as having a facing spur to hold the relief loco. The steam/electric loco swap at Rickmansworth was famously so fast it was said it didn’t seem to be much longer than other station stops.

Hi Harpo. I remember in the 70's the Euston - Blackpools changed locos on the same end I think they allowed 10 for that. Obviously easier at Nottm Mid, Birmingham NS and Reading where the locos went on the other end.

 

[Cowley]

When class 37/4 was on the drawing board the Euston-Aberystwyth aircon service didn't exist. It was something that only became possible once class 37/4 had been approved.

Was there a Euston to Aberystwyth aircon service at some point? I didn’t think 37/4s were able to supply very many coaches, and I thought most stuff going out that way were mk1s and early mk2s?

 

[Richard Scott]

Why didn't the 46s get the ETS modifications instead of the 45s? The 46s are electrically very similar to 47s so there would have been less design work, and the size of the class would have meant they could have just converted all of them, rather than splitting them into ETS and non ETS variants as happened with the larger 45 fleet.

Therein lies the problem 46s are similar to 47s and therefore inferior to the 45s. 47s were only successful due to sheer numbers, the Crompton Parkinson Generator and Traction Motors linked with Allen and West Electrical control equipment were vastly superior to Brush equipment. 45s had 5 field diverts giving superior performance and their all parallel motor arrangement was more reliable than series parallel 46 arrangement.
Also the 45s were used on Midland Mainline, where new mk2 air conditioned coaches were being introduced and 46s were mostly on cross country turns, which retained steam heat for a while longer. Midland mainline wanted to keep 45s, I believe, hence why they were selected instead of 46s.
ETH conversion of 46s would probably have required slightly less design work but probably minimal.

 

[Magdalia]

Why didn't the 46s get the ETS modifications instead of the 45s?

The alternative to ETH on class 45s would have been ETH on more class 47s, not ETH on class 46s.

Was there a Euston to Aberystwyth aircon service at some point?

Yes, 1540 from Euston and 0722 from Aberystwyth in 1986. I think it was a portion detached/attached at Shrewsbury, but I don't know how many coaches.

 

[hexagon789]

Was there a Euston to Aberystwyth aircon service at some point? I didn’t think 37/4s were able to supply very many coaches, and I thought most stuff going out that way were mk1s and early mk2s?

Yes but formation was split at Shrewsbury with buffet and First Class detached so remaining load was within 37/4 ETH index.

The alternative to ETH on class 45s would have been ETH on more class 47s, not ETH on class 46s.


Yes, 1540 from Euston and 0722 from Aberystwyth in 1986. I think it was a portion detached/attached at Shrewsbury, but I don't know how many coaches.

5 coaches forward to/from Aberystwyth:

BSO + 5 TSO

RBR, 3 FO, NEA left at/re-attached @ Shrewsbury

That was the case in 1986 at least.

 

[Gloster]

Summer 1987 saw the 10.15 Aberystwyth being 1x2C and 5x2D, with five more vehicles attached at Wolverhampton. The 15.00 was 11 Mark 1 from Aberystwyth, with a BG attached at Wolverhampton.

 

[Helvellyn]

Off topic but if a pair of 37/4s are used does the ETH index available remain at 38 (that of one loco) or 76 (that is the two combined can provide ETH together)?

 

[Cheshire Scot]

It was the elimination of double manning on the trains in Scotland that were still steam heated that drove the case for the class 37/4s. Without that class 37/4 would not have happened.

Many, perhaps most, workings continued to be double manned as there was no PNB opportunity for the driver working to a changeover point and straight back.