British Railway Operations

[owlsroost]

QUOTE: Southern Pacific I think

That's my understanding too.

Pre - TOPS, diesel locos were classified into 'Types' from 1 to 5 based on their haulage capabilities. When TOPS arrived, the type number generally became the first digit of the class number e.g. Deltics became class 55. A three digit unit number was appended to this to form the new loco number - so the Deltics went from being D9000 - D9021 to 55 001 - 55 022.

Tony

Tony

[M636C]

QUOTE: Originally posted by owlsroost

QUOTE: Southern Pacific I think

That's my understanding too.

Pre - TOPS, diesel locos were classified into 'Types' from 1 to 5 based on their haulage capabilities. When TOPS arrived, the type number generally became the first digit of the class number e.g. Deltics became class 55. A three digit unit number was appended to this to form the new loco number - so the Deltics went from being D9000 - D9021 to 55 001 - 55 022.

Tony

Tony

To make the example quoted a little clearer, D9001 to D9021 became 55 001 to 55 021 and D9000 became 55 022, so that the individual numbers stayed the same as much as possible.

Similarly D8001 became 20 001 and D8000 was slotted into a number left blank by an early withdrawal.

Fortunately, this logical system is still used despite privatisation.

M636C

[Murphy Siding]

So, I'm understanding that class *number* like 55 or 37 has no signifigance in itself? Class 37 doesn't signify that the engine has 3700 horsepower or anything like that?

Thanks

[Anonymous]

There's no significance to the class number - they seem to pretty much pick whatever's free these days. Some locos didn't survive long enough to gain TOPS numbers even though they were allocated (for example, the D8500 "Clayton" diesels were to become class 17, but were all withdrawn due to their terrible reliabilty record before they could be renumbered).

[Anonymous]

Railroading Brit - whereabouts in Wales. Ironically Cogloads parents are based in Radnorshire

[owlsroost]

Just to 'fill out' the UK class numbering table:

Diesel locos are in the 1x to 6x series

DC electric locos are in the 7x series
AC electric locos are in the 8x and 9x series

Diesel MU's with mechanical transmissions are in the 1xx series
Diesel MU's with electric transmissions are in the 2xx series

AC and AC/DC electric MU's are in the 3xx series
DC electric MU's are in the 4xx and 5xx series

There's also a 9xx series for special vehicles.

Tony

[Murphy Siding]

Thanks for the clarification. I see the Deltic mentioned from time to time. On our side of the Atlantic, that's probably the most recognized British diesel. What I've read of them, the deltic name is in reference to the triangle shape formed by the 3 banks of cylenders. It would seem to me that an arrangement as such would have all the same problems that Fairbanks-Morse had with it's opposed piston diesel engines. So why did the Deltics do so good, and the F-M's do so poorly?

Thanks

[M636C]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

So, I'm understanding that class *number* like 55 or 37 has no signifigance in itself? Class 37 doesn't signify that the engine has 3700 horsepower or anything like that?

Thanks

As mentioned earlier, the class numbers derived from the earlier "Type" numbers.

Shunting (swtching) locomotives had no type numbers, and these were given TOPS class numbers from 01 to 09

Type 1 locomotives were those with up to 1000 HP, and these were given class numbers in the range 11 to 20. The class 20 locomotives were 1000HP and were equivalent to lower power type 2 units.

Type 2 locomotives had power ratings from 1000HP to 1500HP. These were given class numbers from 21 to 30. One class, the Bru***ype 2 was in the process of being rebuilt with more powerful engines of 1470 HP, and these became class 31 (rebuilt from class 30)

There were only two Type 3 locomotive types, and these became class 33 (1550HP) and class 37 (1750HP)

The Type 4 locomotives were those over 2000 HP but less than 3000 HP and these were numbered from Class 40 to Class 52.

The only Type 5 at the time of reclassification was the Type 55 "Delic" of 3300HP.

Later locomotives of above 3000 HP were class 56, 58, 59, 60, 66 and 67

Classes 61 to 65 were avoided because these numbers were used on diesel railcars. Note that the classes were not used by railcars, but the individual railcar vehicle numbers would have conflicted with locomotives in those series.

Class 57 are class 47 locomotives rebuilt with EMD 12-645E3 engines, and these are only 2500 HP, but recieved the class "57" to indicate their origin as class 47.

The HST power cars were originally Class 41, but later 41 001 and 41 002 were renumbered as 43000 and 43001 in the passenger car series and later power cars were in this series.The trains were regarded as diesel multiple unit cars in classes 253 and 254. Even later, the "train" classes were abandoned and HST power cars (2250 HP) are now known as "Class 43" using the existing numbers in the passenger car series.

So, in general, a higher class number means a higher power, based on the 1958 "Type" number groupings.

Of surviving old classes.

Class 37 are 1750 HP
Class 47 are 2500 HP

Classes 56 to 60 and 66 and 67 are around 3000HP, except for Class 57 (2500HP).

M636C

[M636C]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Thanks for the clarification. I see the Deltic mentioned from time to time. On our side of the Atlantic, that's probably the most recognized British diesel. What I've read of them, the deltic name is in reference to the triangle shape formed by the 3 banks of cylenders. It would seem to me that an arrangement as such would have all the same problems that Fairbanks-Morse had with it's opposed piston diesel engines. So why did the Deltics do so good, and the F-M's do so poorly?

Thanks

The Deltic engine was built by Napier, who mainly built aircraft engines. Napier had built single bank opposed piston diesel aero engines under licence from the German "Junkers" company. The Deltic was intended for use in fast light Naval patrol boats, and the engines were made largely from cast aluminium, except for the gears, crankshafts and connecting rods. This also allowed their use in minehunting ships, where the aluminium construction reduced the magnetic signature, and combined with a wooden or fibreglass hull, gave a ship that could often avoid magnetic mines. The light weight allowed easy removal and in both the locomotive and in Naval ships, the engine was able to be removed and taken to a central workshop for overhaul after a specified number of running hours. This allowed the engines to be always worked on by experts, and by using exchange engines, the locomotive was back in service quickly. This allowed the Deltic to succeed while the F-M suffered from maintainers unfamiliar with their special features. They weren't cheap to buy or run, but the locomotives were very reliable in service, particularly since each Class 55 had two 1650HP engines, and could run on a single engine at reduced power meaning that very few complete failures were experienced. This was important, because British passenger trains rarely had more than one locomotive (before the HST was introduced).

M636C

[owlsroost]

The 'Deltics' did have high maintenance costs, but when they were being run hard on intensive, high speed schedules (i.e. what they were bought for) apparently they were cheaper to maintain than the (lower power) class 47 diesels running the other trains on the same routes - and no other BR diesel loco could touch them for high power at high speed (and they only weighed just over 100 tons too).

It was only after they had been displaced by HST's from front-rank service onto lesser trains that the economics worked against them, and BR decided that it wasn't worth keeping a small number of unique locomotives in service any longer.

Interestingly, the track forces generated by a 'Deltic' running at 100mph became the UK benchmark for acceptable track forces at high speed.

Tony

[Anonymous]

Tony, I'm in Mid Wales (pretty much in the old Radnorshire, close to the border).

Regarding the HST power car numbers, these were a little more complex - 41001 and 41002 were the prototype pair (painted grey with a blue band at window height, and a very different nose design to the production version - 41001 survives at the NRM but 41002 went to the breakers in the 90's after extensive usage by the R&D department of BR). The standard production examples were Class 43. While numbered as sets rather than individual locos and stock, the prototype carried 252001, production sets carried 253xxx and 254xxx numbers (the main difference being the type and number of coaches).

[Simon Reed]

Murphy Siding - you're quite correct. The actual power unit was referred to as a "Deltic" type by Napier, as an allusion to the Greek letter Delta, which is roughly triangular.

As has been suggested by M636 the power unit was primarily intended for marine applications and was, in that respect, phenomenally successful.

Our friend Tulyar15 may tell you more as he apparently IS a Deltic, failing which you could do worse than check out www.thedps.co.uk .

Shame you're in South Dakota (which I believe is one of the four states not served by Amtrak) because on such a fantastic day for English sport I'm sure a few of us USA-o-Phile Brits could sit you down, give you some proper beer and answer any question you cared to think of!

[Murphy Siding]

Wow! 5 replys from 4 posters! I feel like I hit the jackpot!
Now that I see that the class #'s are broken down in relation to their reletive horsepower, it does make a lot more sense. I couldn't figure out how a country could be so proud of Spifires,Hurricanes,Lancasters and such could come up with a name as exciting as "Class 37".

Now then,is Napier the same engine company that produced Napier Saber engines for *I think* Hawker Tempests? The ones that overheated so much? Maybe it was the Typhoon(?) but I thought they had Merlins in them.

Funny you should mention the success of Deltic engines in marine applications. I recall that F-M had built it's reputation on marine applications. I read too. that some Alco diesel engines still live on in those type applications also.

One last thought-How often did the engines get switched out in a Deltic? Was it after so many hours, or only when there was a problem?

Again- Thanks

[Simon Reed]

The Napier company were predominantly concerned in providing engines for maritime use but it would'nt surprise me if they also dabbled in aviation.

"Deltic" is a semi-official nickname which stuck. Pretty much every bit of traction on BR and it's successors has been given a nickname, with varying degrees of officialdom,currency and obscenity. The humble Class 37 could, according to where and who you are, be a Tractor, Growler, Death, Syphon, Slug, Fatty etc..

The list really is endless.....

[M636C]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Railroading_Brit

Tony, I'm in Mid Wales (pretty much in the old Radnorshire, close to the border).

Regarding the HST power car numbers, these were a little more complex - 41001 and 41002 were the prototype pair (painted grey with a blue band at window height, and a very different nose design to the production version - 41001 survives at the NRM but 41002 went to the breakers in the 90's after extensive usage by the R&D department of BR). The standard production examples were Class 43. While numbered as sets rather than individual locos and stock, the prototype carried 252001, production sets carried 253xxx and 254xxx numbers (the main difference being the type and number of coaches).

Trust me, despite looking different, 41001 and 41002 were renumbered as 43000 and 43001 by 1975, when I travelled between them from St Pancras to Derby as part of the Engineering Conference excursions celebrating 150 years of railways. They mistook me for someone important and I was in a VIP car with free drinks! At Derby, 43002, the first production car, was on display, still with its black window stripe which was replaced by Rail Blue before it entered service. So I have photos of the first three HST power cars with the same number series photographed on the same day! The first two both got departmental DB series numbers before 41001 went to the museum. So I'm not making this up, I was there!

M636C

[M636C]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Wow! 5 replys from 4 posters! I feel like I hit the jackpot!
Now that I see that the class #'s are broken down in relation to their reletive horsepower, it does make a lot more sense. I couldn't figure out how a country could be so proud of Spifires,Hurricanes,Lancasters and such could come up with a name as exciting as "Class 37".

Now then,is Napier the same engine company that produced Napier Saber engines for *I think* Hawker Tempests? The ones that overheated so much? Maybe it was the Typhoon(?) but I thought they had Merlins in them.

Funny you should mention the success of Deltic engines in marine applications. I recall that F-M had built it's reputation on marine applications. I read too. that some Alco diesel engines still live on in those type applications also.

One last thought-How often did the engines get switched out in a Deltic? Was it after so many hours, or only when there was a problem?

Again- Thanks

Yes the Napier Sabre was a 24 cylinder horizontally opposed engine, with two crankshafts geared together, one above the other giving a "H" shape engine of 2400HP. It was used in the Typhoon and Tempest and was proposed for the slightly smaller Fury, but the Bristol Centaurus radial engine was used in those and the later Sea Fury.

Napier also built the amazing Napier Nomad, a twelve cylinder horizonally opposed diesel (like half a Sabre) arranged as a turbo-compound. the turbine that drove the exhaust gas powered turbocharger was clutched to the crankshaft to provide extra power, and the Nomad produced over 3000 HP, as well as some exhaust thrust. It was effectively a gas turbine with the twelve cylinder diesel acting as the combustion chamber. It is said to be the most fuel efficient aero engine ever built. It was test flown, but was so complex compared to a jet or turboprop that it never entered production.

My recollection is that the Navy changed out the Deltic engine between 3000 and 4000 hours, and I expect that it may have been similar for the locomotives. The opinion in the workshop was that the engines could run far longer than that between overhaul, and BR may have extended the operating life if they had good results.

M636C

[Tulyar15]

Nowadays the Royal Navy use the same Paxman engine as powers the HST's

On the subject of class names, when BR revived the practice of naming locos in the mid 1970's (Dr. Beeching having ended the practivce 10 years before) the class 50's were given Warship names that had previously been carried by the "Warship" diesel hyrdraulic locos (Classes 42 and 43) which by then had been scrapped. But somehow the 50's never became known as Warships and were still known by their nickname of "Hoovers" (the sound they make when they're idling); railfans still associated the name "Warship" with the diesel hydraulic class (two of which have been preserved).

Other class names were the "Western Class" of diesel hydraulics were all the names started with the word "Western" eg "Western Enterprise" (popular with Terkkies no doubt!) , "Western Pathfinder" etc. (They were TOPS class 52 but never carried 5 digit numbers) Then there's also the Peak class diesel electrics. These 140 ton leviathans were the heaviest diesel locos to operate in Britain. The ten prototypes had 2,300hp Sulzer engines and were named after mountains in England and Wales. The production version had uprated (2,500hp) engines and were mostly un-named but a few were named after British Army regiments. Under the TOPS scheme the 10 prototypes became class 44, the production batch either 45 or 46 depending on what make of traction motors they had.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M636C

QUOTE: Originally posted by Railroading_Brit

Tony, I'm in Mid Wales (pretty much in the old Radnorshire, close to the border).

Regarding the HST power car numbers, these were a little more complex - 41001 and 41002 were the prototype pair (painted grey with a blue band at window height, and a very different nose design to the production version - 41001 survives at the NRM but 41002 went to the breakers in the 90's after extensive usage by the R&D department of BR). The standard production examples were Class 43. While numbered as sets rather than individual locos and stock, the prototype carried 252001, production sets carried 253xxx and 254xxx numbers (the main difference being the type and number of coaches).

Trust me, despite looking different, 41001 and 41002 were renumbered as 43000 and 43001 by 1975, when I travelled between them from St Pancras to Derby as part of the Engineering Conference excursions celebrating 150 years of railways. They mistook me for someone important and I was in a VIP car with free drinks! At Derby, 43002, the first production car, was on display, still with its black window stripe which was replaced by Rail Blue before it entered service. So I have photos of the first three HST power cars with the same number series photographed on the same day! The first two both got departmental DB series numbers before 41001 went to the museum. So I'm not making this up, I was there!

M636C

I stand corrected - My main source was/is a book titled "HST Silver Jubilee" which didn't mention this! They did mention the black window stripe on the first production power car though. Nice going in getting into the VIP car by the way!

[Murphy Siding]

Are engines with aluninum blocks, like the Deltic,common in British Railroading or the exception?

In checking out the Deltic website-and all the other interestings sites you guys have posted, I see something I (and most Americans no doubt) have never quite understood. *Buffers* (or boofers,as they're called on Thomas the Tank Engine[:)]):how exactly are British and other European train cars "hooked" together? I've read that they have *screw* type cuoplers. How does the British system differ from what we Americans are used to-the Janey coupler?

Thanks

[M636C]

To go back to the "Cargo Sprinter" again, the Australian one moved from Melbourne to Sydney, where there is a lot of sea container movement in the suburban area.

This link should give a clear photo.

http://www.railpage.com.au/g-te2815-v:Cargo_Sprinter_at_Moss_Vale_12Sep2005_003.htm

M636C

[Murphy Siding]

Is that 1, or 2, hooked end to end?

[M636C]

That is two driving cars coupled back to back. They are intended to run in pairs with four to six flat cars coupled between them. The flat cars need MU cables. The power car owners don't own any flat cars, and will obtain some and fit the cables when the cars enter service in their new location.

M636C

[Tulyar15]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Are engines with aluninum blocks, like the Deltic,common in British Railroading or the exception?

No Deltic engines were almost unique on BR. The only other diesels with two stroke engines were the 10 strong class of "Baby Deltics" which had a single 1,100 hp 9 cylinder Deltic engine and the weird Metro-Vic Co-Bo class (The Thomas the Tank Engine character "Boco" is one of these). Both classes were withdrawn by the end of the 1960's.

QUOTE:
In checking out the Deltic website-and all the other interestings sites you guys have posted, I see something I (and most Americans no doubt) have never quite understood. *Buffers* (or boofers,as they're called on Thomas the Tank Engine[:)]):how exactly are British and other European train cars "hooked" together? I've read that they have *screw* type cuoplers. How does the British system differ from what we Americans are used to-the Janey coupler?

Thanks

British locos still have screw couplings which consist of two loops and a thred for tightening them up once the far loop has been put on a hook. There's a variety of different types of buck eye couplings used on multiple units these days; all loco hauled passenger cars have buckeye couplings but as most locos dont they have to drop the buckeye and hook on a loco using its screw coupling in general. The Virgin class 57 "Thunderbird" locos are fitted with a special coupling so they can pull an electric Pendolino train when they are diverted over an unelectrified line or they have to switch the power off.

Because BR and it successors failed to fix a standard couplings are a bit of a mess in Britain.

[Murphy Siding]

Does each car connection then have to be manually "screwed" (?) together by a trainman?

[Anonymous]

If the stock used has screw-link couplings, then yes - coupling two vehicles involves hooking the chain from one over the hook of the other, then turning the threaded link to pull them together (then the usual brake pipes, etc). Older stock (steam-era, though some lasted into the diesel age) used three-link couplings (as the name suggests, these were a length of chain three links long) but there were problems with the slack involved - the train crew had to be very careful to avoid broken couplings or damaged cargo. Some of the most recent equipment is fitted with US-type knuckle couplers (these were standardised for passenger stock with the BR standard designs (MK1, MK2, etc) though they were originally used by the LNER and Pullman - most cars had/have a drop-head knuckle coupler that reveals a hook behind, and retractable buffers to allow them to couple to locos and other cars without knuckles).

[M636C]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Does each car connection then have to be manually "screwed" (?) together by a trainman?

What Tulyar has called "Buckeye" couplers are Janney/AAR couplers, most of which are hinged horizontally through the shank to drop into a vertical position, revealing a hook which can be used with a screw coupler. Virtually all long distance passenger cars built since 1951 have these couplers and are coupled together with the knuckle couplers within the train, and only the couplers at the end are dropped to allow coupling to the locomotive with the screw couplers. When the knuckle is raised, pins are removed from the buffers to allow them to be retracted, all forces being taken by the "Buckeye".

The screw coupler takes only the tension load, when it is in use, the buffers taking all the compression load. To couple, the screw coupler is usually partly screwed up and the locomotive carefully runs up to the train and partly compresses the buffers, enough for the the coupler to be dropped over the hook on the end coach. The coupler is then screwed up a little more while the buffers are still compressed and the end loops are restrained by the hooks. The locomotive then cuts power or releases its brakes, and the buffers pu***he locomotive back, putting the screw coupler in tension.

This involves a trainman climbing under the buffers of the locomotive and car, and lifting the link into place and tightening it in a very confined space, particularly since the end gangway of the passenger car will be projecting over the coupler on that vehicle. There is a risk of the man slipping and falling against all the MU equipment or the air brake pipes. On the GNER Mk4 trains running London to Edinburgh, the trains are fixed in composition and the end car on the locomotive end has no gangway fitted (to make this task easier). A driving control vehicle is at the other end.

This situation has existed for at least thirty years. On my first visit to the UK in 1973, only the older diesel railcars still used screw couplers between the passenger vehicles. The distance between these cars was much greater.

I really don't understand why they don't use knuckle couplers on the locomotive. When "Flying Scotsman" visited Australia in 1989, it used the knuckle that it had had on the tender since 1928 to couple to Australian passenger cars (even though the British couplers are 3" higher than Australian (and US) knuckles). There weren't any problems with that practice that I heard of.

You do have to hit the train harder to ensure the knuckle couples, but that doesn't seem to be that big a problem. The trainman still has to couple the air pipes, of course, but that can be done after coupling with nothing being compressed.

M636C

[TH&B]

The screw coupler seems kind of dangerous and labour intensive, especialy when switching freight cars in marshaling yards. There is at least one interesting advantage of the screw coupler to the knuckle coupler and that is the loose slack can be manualy adjusted. The screw can be tightened so that there is no loose slack. On some routes in the mountains the screw is backed off a couple of turns on heavier trains or on lines with sharper curves to give the train some slack. The French TGV use the screw coupler between the loco and the passenger cars at each end. A TGV train could consievably be coupled to the Stevensens ROCKET !

[Murphy Siding]

This does,to me,sound dangerous and labot intensive also. Do I understand this correctly that the screw coupler takes the tension loading, and the buffers take the compression loading? It sounds like your trains still have slack action, but maybe they don't rumble when the train is handled a little rough?

Thanks

[Anonymous]

They don't have much slack action now due to the screw couplers - the buffers hold the coupler in tension. With the old three-link couplers there was considerable slack, add in the fact that most freight trains then had no continuous brake (the loco and brake van were used to slow down) and the results could be interesting to say the least... In reality rail staff learned how to handle the couplers quickly in yards (three links can be uncoupled using a shunter's pole without crawling underneath - you rest the pole on one buffer and use the end to flip the chain off the hook).

[TH&B]

The couplers can have some slack, or no slack, it can be adjusted by the scew.