What did for the 45s?

[Cowley]

I think they're were quite a few spares, 33s had nearly identical cubicles and can rewind a motor or generator an almost infinite number of times, despite being costly. Scored commutators may be a more expensive/difficult proposition.
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.

Suspension of classified repairs created a pool of withdrawn and stored locomotives that were an important source of spare parts for the locomotives that continued in operation, what was gruesomely referred to as cannibalisation.

Yes, good points both.

These machines weren’t that old at the time (relatively speaking) and robbing the odd withdrawn one definitely kept the show on the road back then.

 

[Harpo]

These machines weren’t that old at the time (relatively speaking) and robbing the odd withdrawn one definitely kept the show on the road back then.

Robbing (often from a ‘Christmas tree’) was always desperation. First you were taking a gamble on the condition of the robbed component and second you were setting yourself up to repeat the job again fairly soon, especially if you actually had the part on order.

Even if the part was available from stores, tagging it as ‘UVS’ (Urgent - Vehicle standing) sometimes seemed to add no urgency at all.

The worst form of robbing was from a vehicle likely to see further use as you then did a third component replacement to undo the robbing!

 

[EveningStar]

Do recall a Railway Inspectorate annual report mid-80's where the expectation of train fires would go down significantly following withdrawal of the class 45. Imagine big plate frame bogies provides lots of surface for oil to collect.

 

[matchmaker]

There was a ban at Glasgow Central for locos with pony-wheeled bogies for a while in the 1980s, can't remember if it were 40s or 45s, (all from the thread below) but things like this on top don't help when a 47 can do it


Looks like there were a couple of incidents:


https://www.derbysulzers.com/80.html

The ban is still in the December 2024 Sectional Appendix.

 

[Falcon1200]

The ban is still in the December 2024 Sectional Appendix.

I recall one occasion, post-ban, when a 45 (I think) was sent towards us on a Carlisle-Glasgow C via Dumfries service, requiring a loco change at Barrhead!

 

[Davester50]

The ban is still in the December 2024 Sectional Appendix

Interesting!
I thought there was a railtour relatively recently, but must have been Queen Street.

 

[Magdalia]

Robbing (often from a ‘Christmas tree’) was always desperation. First you were taking a gamble on the condition of the robbed component and second you were setting yourself up to repeat the job again fairly soon, especially if you actually had the part on order.

Depot Christmas Trees were a bit desperate but what happened in the 1980/81 recession was not like that. It was a managed process as part of the classified repair programme, and not desperate.

Classified repairs always involved component exchange, starting with locomotives being stripped to a shell, then put back together with overhauled components from a pool of works spares.

What happened in 1980/81 was that the locomotives due classified repair were stripped of components that could be overhauled and placed into the works spares pool, then stored or scrapped either with components missing or with components deemed too costly for overhaul, instead of receiving overhauled components and returning to traffic.

Components removed from stored/withdrawn locomotives were not going onto other locomotives without being overhauled first, as part of the normal works repair process.

First you were taking a gamble on the condition of the robbed component and second you were setting yourself up to repeat the job again fairly soon, especially if you actually had the part on order.

Even if the part was available from stores, tagging it as ‘UVS’ (Urgent - Vehicle standing) sometimes seemed to add no urgency at all.

The worst form of robbing was from a vehicle likely to see further use as you then did a third component replacement to undo the robbing!

The Urgent Vehicle Standing (UVS) was designed to be for prioritisation of need, hence the urgent part of the name. As any manager knows, not everything can be top priority, and UVS broke down through over use.

When UVS broke down, and a depot had loco 1 out of traffic waiting component A plus loco 2 out of traffic waiting component B, it made short term sense to take component B out of loco 1 and use it to keep loco 2 in traffic. But it was a slippery slope where loco 1 could end up being the Christmas Tree never getting all the components it needed to return to traffic.

 

[Strathclyder]

Interesting!
I thought there was a railtour relatively recently, but must have been Queen Street.

Likely not what you're thinking of, but 40145 worked with Deltic 55022 on a SPRS Routes & Branches tour in August 2008, taking in the likes of Helensburgh, Paisley Canal, Ardrossan, Drumgelloch & Larkhall. There were two reversals at Queen St High Level at each end of the tour itinerary to/from Bo'ness while Central was avoided entirely. Six Bells link below.

Six Bells Junction

 

[Clarence Yard]

If you had a loco stopped at depot and ”w/m” (waiting material) you were supposed to put a UVS in. Likewise, if you hadn’t got bits for a train heating boiler (or your ETH) and your loco was running around NB (or steam heat only).

UVS worked well when the works had the bits to send to the depot (usually in the dedicated Enparts vans) but from the 1970’s onwards the supply chain would break down on occasion and then you had too many locos stopped at depot and the works overhaul production lines would also get disrupted.

That would then put more pressure on availability as you had too many of the fleet stopped on either depot or works. When I was at DME KX, I spent quite a bit of time chasing UVS’s or how our locos were progressing through works. My various DME’s and my Traction Maintenance Engineer (Peter Townend) were engineers who always wanted to know the exact position and were not men to be messed with. Luckily my opposite at Regional Shopping was one Murray Brown and he usually knew what was going on, especially with Deltics!

A word about 45’s and fires. The LMR had a poor reputation for keeping their (loco and DMU) bogies and underframes clean. Both the ER and WR seemed to put more effort in keeping them clean. For instance, I used to shop the FP cl.31 fleet for mid classified (i.e. about 2 yearly) heavy bogie and underframe cleans at Stratford DRS.

But the WR had dedicated facilities at their depots. For instance when I went to OOC, I marvelled at their expensive “elephant house”, which could clean a loco or DMU from top to bottom. When we inherited the cl.104 GoB sets off CW, they all had to go through the elephant house at least two times to get all the caked muck off so the OOC staff would actually work on them! I actually inspected (the now preserved) 53455 on arrival myself and one member of staff pointed to it and said, “Guv’nor, mind out - that’s F…….. J.Arthur!”

 

[The Crab]

If you had a loco stopped at depot and ”w/m” (waiting material) you were supposed to put a UVS in. Likewise, if you hadn’t got bits for a train heating boiler (or your ETH) and your loco was running around NB (or steam heat only).

UVS worked well when the works had the bits to send to the depot (usually in the dedicated Enparts vans) but from the 1970’s onwards the supply chain would break down on occasion and then you had too many locos stopped at depot and the works overhaul production lines would also get disrupted.

That would then put more pressure on availability as you had too many of the fleet stopped on either depot or works. When I was at DME KX, I spent quite a bit of time chasing UVS’s or how our locos were progressing through works. My various DME’s and my Traction Maintenance Engineer (Peter Townend) were engineers who always wanted to know the exact position and were not men to be messed with. Luckily my opposite at Regional Shopping was one Murray Brown and he usually knew what was going on, especially with Deltics!

A word about 45’s and fires. The LMR had a poor reputation for keeping their (loco and DMU) bogies and underframes clean. Both the ER and WR seemed to put more effort in keeping them clean. For instance, I used to shop the FP cl.31 fleet for mid classified (i.e. about 2 yearly) heavy bogie and underframe cleans at Stratford DRS.

But the WR had dedicated facilities at their depots. For instance when I went to OOC, I marvelled at their expensive “elephant house”, which could clean a loco or DMU from top to bottom. When we inherited the cl.104 GoB sets off CW, they all had to go through the elephant house at least two times to get all the caked muck off so the OOC staff would actually work on them! I actually inspected (the now preserved) 53455 on arrival myself and one member of staff pointed to it and said, “Guv’nor, mind out - that’s F…….. J.Arthur!”

What does UVS, DME and GoB mean?

 

[norbitonflyer]

What does UVS, DME and GoB mean?

UVS - see posts 32 and 37: Urgent Vehicle Standing
DME - I would guess something Mechanical Engineer - diesel?, depot?, division?
GoB - Gospel Oak-Barking (aka the Goblin) - Old Oak Common inherited the Class 104s operating that line from CW (Cricklewood) when that diesel depot closed

 

[Clarence Yard]

DME = Divisional Maintenance Engineer.

Until the early to mid 1980’s, BR (Scottish Region excepted) was organised into a Region-Division-Area (or Depot) structure.

For instance in the 1970’s, the Eastern Region was organised into the Liverpool St, Norwich, Kings Cross, Doncaster, Sheffield, Leeds and Newcastle Divisions.

In the KX Division there were Area Managers at KX, Hitchin and Peterborough, also looking after train crew. The M&EE maintenance was undertaken by the AME KX, Depot Engineer Finsbury Park, Depot Manager Bounds Green (so called because he had carriage cleaners under his wing) and AME (ET) Hornsey EMU. The latter also had OHL and OHL power supply responsibilities. There was a Maintenance Assistant at Peterborough, who, for pay and rations, came under the AME March, which was part of the Norwich Division.

Until the AME KX was created (under the “field” proposals), the Depot Manager KX had both train crew and maintenance responsibilities. Afterwards he became the Train Crew Manager KX. AME KX had the responsibility for Hitchin depot, all outstations C&W activities and control of all Outdoor Machinery activities at stations, depots, lineside rooms and office blocks. Everything from cranes, pumps, lifts, fixed and mobile equipment right down to simple 240v socket outlets and lamps.

The DME KX was situated (with the Divisional Manager KX) in G.N.House, an office block on the Euston Road (no 79/81) right opposite to where the British Library is. It is still there and for many years has been some kind of student/youth hostel.

 

[The Crab]

UVS - see posts 32 and 37: Urgent Vehicle Standing
DME - I would guess something Mechanical Engineer - diesel?, depot?, division?
GoB - Gospel Oak-Barking (aka the Goblin) - Old Oak Common inherited the Class 104s operating that line from CW (Cricklewood) when that diesel depot closed

Thank you.

 

[Pigeon]

Weight was an advantage in the days of unbraked wagons, as it improved the braking capability of tbe train. Indeed, "diesel brake tenders" were used for a while with some of the lighter locomotives. Basically a dead weight on wheels, fitted with continuous brakes and coupled to a locomotive to increase the "fitted head" of the train.

I've seen photos of Peaks trundling around with brake tenders too. The Peaks may have been heavy, but their own brakes weren't that great.

A little anecdote, people often asked Gloucester drivers (who basically knew almost all diesel traction in England/Wales) what was the best type 4s, answers invariably came back as 45 best, 50 second and 47 last. Amused me as upset lots of people, particularly those who hated 50s!!

...as far as miles per casualty were concerned they were similar to other type 4s. The problem was when they let go it was usually a traction motor or generator flashover, so an expensive repair whereas other classes may have been a burned out relay or something fairly cheap to repair.

I used to reckon on the Paddington-Worcesters that when there was a 47 on the front, it would reliably get to Worcester 10 minutes late; when there was a 50, it would either be bang on time, or it would go bang in the middle of nowhere and be a couple of hours late.

Not sure that hammer blow can be applied to diesels.

It can't. Nor electrics. Unfortunately people who should know better keep calling the track-damaging property of axle-hung traction motors "hammer blow" when what they actually mean is "unsprung weight".

I thought it was the result of out-of-balance forces, rotary and reciprocating, that all steam engines suffer from (but some more than others).

Yes. You can balance the wheels and coupling rods perfectly since all the motion is rotary, but you can't balance both the rotary and the reciprocating forces of the con-rod/piston assembly at the same time, so you end up with a compromise over how much of what you leave unbalanced. The forces concerned are of the same order as the static axle loading, so if you compromise it wrong you tend to get to find out.

Leaving aside unconventional drive systems, you still can get rid of it if you have a complete circle of phases all driving onto the same axle, so all their unbalanced vectors add up to zero in the ideal case (at least viewed in side elevation) and to only negligible magnitudes in a real one. This usually means 3 cylinders with cranks set at 120 degrees, or 4 at 90, though it goes down as far as 2 at 180 and up as far as you like if you can squeeze all the cranks and eccentrics in. Gresley was fond of using 3 at 120, but the difficulty is that the necessity to have the outside and inside cylinders all in the same line tends to require other awkward compromises, often for instance in frame rigidity, so many designers of locos with more than 2 cylinders nevertheless preferred to have outside and inside cylinders driving different axles, and just argue with the civils over how imperfect a cancellation was acceptable

The main factors in allowing or disallowing given classes over given bridges (aside from brute total load of the train on the bridge) are the static axle load, its augmentation by hammer blow (if applicable), and the linear density, ie. weight per unit length. Usually if you're OK on the first two you're a lot more than OK on the third, so it is rarely a significant concern, but it can be if the linear density is abnormally high.

 

[Rescars]

I used to reckon on the Paddington-Worcesters that when there was a 47 on the front, it would reliably get to Worcester 10 minutes late; when there was a 50, it would either be bang on time, or it would go bang in the middle of nowhere and be a couple of hours late.

I have it on reasonably good authority that the Paddington-Worcester-Herefords were pretty reliable timekeepers back in the Warship/Hymek era!

 

[Blade Fisher]

There was a ban at Glasgow Central for locos with pony-wheeled bogies for a while in the 1980s, can't remember if it were 40s or 45s, (all from the thread below) but things like this on top don't help when a 47 can do it


Looks like there were a couple of incidents:


https://www.derbysulzers.com/80.html

Yet Ive seen a photo taken in 1981 of a Peak at Kilmarnock on an up train. So how does that square then?

 

[hexagon789]

Yet Ive seen a photo taken in 1981 of a Peak at Kilmarnock on an up train. So how does that square then?

Would usually swap the loco at Carlisle or even Barrhead when that happened.

 

[Blade Fisher]

Would usually swap the loco at Kilmarnock or even Barrhead when that happened.

Ok but where is the Peak coming from? Surely Glasgow but IIRC it was banned from there and presumably Shields Road (was it an electric shed then), and I assume because of the track Corkerhill. That's what I dont get.

I assumed either the photo was dated incorrectly or somehow they'd been a cock up. I mean why put a loco on it to take it as far as Killie to then swap it around. As far Barrhead how? It isn't bi-di track and again where would it come from. That's what threw me.

 

[edwin_m]

Presumably it was a Peak that had been accidentally sent north, removed when someone realised* and sent back south. Possibly in a swap with whatever replaced it going towards Glasgow?

*Or it was always the intention to swap because Carlisle or wherever couldn't rustle up anything better.

 

[hexagon789]

Ok but where is the Peak coming from? Surely Glasgow but IIRC it was banned from there and presumably Shields Road (was it an electric shed then), and I assume because of the track Corkerhill. That's what I dont get.

I assumed either the photo was dated incorrectly or somehow they'd been a cock up. I mean why put a loco on it to take it as far as Killie to then swap it around. As far Barrhead how? It isn't bi-di track and again where would it come from. That's what threw me.

I meant going north, sorry. Usually I understand they'd try and swap at Carlisle but if nothing available Barrhead was the furthest they could work and then loco swap in the through platforms.

I don't know what you mean about 'isn't bi-di'?

Even now, it's still single line into Barrhead from the south (though only from Lugton, rather than Kilmarnock since 2009) and the through platforms can be used in any direction.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2025 ==

Presumably it was a Peak that had been accidentally sent north, removed when someone realised* and sent back south. Possibly in a swap with whatever replaced it going towards Glasgow?

Yes, that's what I meant a Peak on the working going north with the intention of swapping but at Carlisle rather than in ScR territory.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2025 ==

*Or it was always the intention to swap because Carlisle or wherever couldn't rustle up anything better.

Pretty much how I understood it. A swap should've been at Carlisle but there would be times they'd nothing available so would need the train to work into Scotland with the Peak still on, but obviously only so far.

 

[Blade Fisher]

I meant going north, sorry. Usually I understand they'd try and swap at Carlisle but if nothing available Barrhead was the furthest they could work and then loco swap in the through platforms.

I don't know what you mean about 'isn't bi-di'?

Even now, it's still single line into Barrhead from the south (though only from Lugton, rather than Kilmarnock since 2009) and the through platforms can be used in any direction.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2025 ==


Yes, that's what I meant a Peak on the working going north with the intention of swapping but at Carlisle rather than in ScR territory.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2025 ==


Pretty much how I understood it. A swap should've been at Carlisle but there would be times they'd nothing available so would need the train to work into Scotland with the Peak still on, but obviously only so far.

I will see if I can refind the photo. It is a 45 on a southbound train in P3 at Kilmarnock. Surely BR werent going to put a 47 or 27 on at Central to run to Kilmarnock to then swap locos and put a Peak on the front ! And as for Barrhead how does the southbound Peak overtake the train sitting in the platform when the northbound line is not bi-di?

No either there was a cock up (and a serious risk taken) or the train came from Ayr or most likely the date was wrong.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2025 ==

I will see if I can refind the photo. It is a 45 on a southbound train in P3 at Kilmarnock. Surely BR werent going to put a 47 or 27 on at Central to run to Kilmarnock to then swap locos and put a Peak on the front ! And as for Barrhead how does the southbound Peak overtake the train sitting in the platform when the northbound line is not bi-di?

No either there was a cock up (and a serious risk taken) or the train came from Ayr or most likely the date was wrong.

Found it !

scot-rail.co.uk » Photo » 45137 kilmarnock

 

[Falcon1200]

Yet Ive seen a photo taken in 1981 of a Peak at Kilmarnock on an up train.

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

Surely Glasgow but IIRC it was banned from there and presumably Shields Road (was it an electric shed then), and I assume because of the track Corkerhill. That's what I dont get.

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.

 

[Blade Fisher]

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.

Hi Falcon, were pretty much neighbours!

So how would the loco change be done at Barrhead? A guess. The relief loco sent down and goes into the bay?. Down train arrives. Brakes firmly on !! Peak detaches and runs north out of the way. Once cleared out of section replacement loco out of the bay and shunts onto the down train?

In the reverse I presume Peak arrives first and is cleared into the Barrhead-Lugton section. Train arrives, loco detaches and also runs into the Barrhead-Lugton section. Replacement loco reverses onto down line and back north but the Peak then goes wrong line working backing onto the train?

Lovely faff, one for the gricers !

So at Central is there no easy approach line of route into a platform that minimizes crossing usage. I mean they'd been using the station for a fair few years before the ban was imposed. Wondered if there could not be a compromise even now.

 

[Helvellyn]

Could the Peak photographed at Kilmarnock have been on a Stranraer service?

 

[Gloster]

Hi Falcon, were pretty much neighbours!

So how would the loco change be done at Barrhead? A guess. The relief loco sent down and goes into the bay?. Down train arrives. Brakes firmly on !! Peak detaches and runs north out of the way. Once cleared out of section replacement loco out of the bay and shunts onto the down train?

In the reverse I presume Peak arrives first and is cleared into the Barrhead-Lugton section. Train arrives, loco detaches and also runs into the Barrhead-Lugton section. Replacement loco reverses onto down line and back north but the Peak then goes wrong line working backing onto the train?

Lovely faff, one for the gricers !

So at Central is there no easy approach line of route into a platform that minimizes crossing usage. I mean they'd been using the station for a fair few years before the ban was imposed. Wondered if there could not be a compromise even now.

I don’t know the layout at Barrhead, but if I understand this correctly it means having ‘two in a section’: that is likely to lead to the signalman’s suspension or worse. More likely keep the replacement loco out of the way until the Glasgow loco has been got rid of. Or just change at Kilmarnock.

 

[hexagon789]

I don’t know the layout at Barrhead, but if I understand this correctly it means having ‘two in a section’: that is likely to lead to the signalman’s suspension or worse. More likely keep the replacement loco out of the way until the Glasgow loco has been got rid of. Or just change at Kilmarnock.

This is how Barrhead is currently set out:

 

[Blade Fisher]

Could the Peak photographed at Kilmarnock have been on a Stranraer service?

You mean from Stranraer? Dont think they were cleared for that route anyway. The data in the photo implies it is on a Carlisle service. The photo and time add up. There was a 1240 in 1981 service to Carlisle, stopped at Dunlop and Stewarton as well as the other GSWR suspects.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Surely BR werent going to put a 47 or 27 on at Central to run to Kilmarnock to then swap locos and put a Peak on the front !

Why not? The Peak had got there somehow and needed to go back south. A 27 on its own (basically half a Peak) might not be able to keep time on its own.

Operationally it might have been easier to just add the Peak on the front at barrhead or Kilmarnock, but you then have to get the other loco back north again later on. (And 47s were not fitted with blue star MU equipment, so would have been a dead weight unless there was a driver in each loco)

 

[Blade Fisher]

Why not? The Peak had got there somehow and needed to go back south. A 27 on its own (basically half a Peak) might not be able to keep time on its own.

Operationally it might have been easier to just add the Peak on the front at barrhead or Kilmarnock, but you then have to get the other loco back north again later on. (And 47s were not fitted with blue star MU equipment, so would have been a dead weight unless there was a driver in each loco)

The photo shows the Peak arriving at Kilmarnock (see the photo in earlier post). The whole point is that how did the Peak get there in the first place i.e. Glasgow. If the ban came into force in 1979 and this is 1981 what happened to it on the down (northbound) train. Did it defy the ban? was it known and they did a swap at Barrhead or something? Or was the photo wrongly captioned.

That is why I raised it in the first place.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jul 2025 ==

This is how Barrhead is currently set out:
View attachment 184116

Yep thanks for that. Both platforms are bi-directional so changing over notsomuch a signalling problem as I thought.

 

[Gloster]

Yep thanks for that. Both platforms are bi-directional so changing over notsomuch a signalling problem as I thought.

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.