Ultrascale Class 31 conversion pack...

But in this case the prototype couldn't pull the skin off the proverbial rice pudding so there is no reason why the model should perform any better. Likewise the English Electric Type 3.

(kim)

proverbial

What planet are you on ?! The Class 31's were often used on type *four* duties and were regarded my some as equal to a type 4 loco even though only a nominally Type

2's.

The original Mirrless engines became problematic after a time in use, due to fracturing of the crank case, this was due to being up-rated for use in the loco's, they were not up-rated during service as an attempt to increase drawbar output.

As for the EE Type 3's, this is the first time I have ever heard anyone claim that they were under-powered....

Type 4 duties? On the line beside where I went to school in the 1960's a typical load would be solitary parcel van hauled between Kenilworth and Nuneaton three times a day in both directions (and no bodyside stripe on the blue version).

"Anyone who's boarded a Class 31-hauled train, then got off at the next stop and walked it would know that these locos would need the services of the Nasa Technology Unit to bring them into line, in the speed and acceleration stakes, with a tricycle". [Rail Express, July 2002]

[From the same issue of Rail Express] "A single '37's official recommended haul at birth was nine coaches / 600 passengers. Interestingly , BR assumed this meant the loco could pull both the coaches and the passengers at the same time. They were mistaken...".

My personal experience of the line between Kenilworth and Nuneaton was that it took two EE Type-3's to haul the same empty coal train as one Brush Type

4 or one EE Type 4 could manage. The Brush Type 2 was never used for this particular purpose.

(kim)

driving

yours,

regarded

1960's a

stripe on the

How about the Southern end of the old GNR, I witnessed plenty of examples of 31's deputising for Type 4 turns and I understand most kept time.

acceleration

Well, who ever wrote that was talking total clap, had (s)he ever seen a 31 I wonder let alone talked to crew who drove them in anger !

There is a lot of mistaken beliefs about the 31's and their reliability due to the very embarrassing failure of one on a Royal Train duties in the 1960's, IIRC the loco still had it's original engine.

recommended

And what was the train booked for, are you seriously suggesting that BR and the EE Co. didn't know what they were doing when designing / ordering the 37's, considering also that BR went on to increase the order *after* they had real world experience of the loco's 'on the road' ?

It really does sound like the 'hack' who wrote that article really didn't know the first thing. :~(

":::Jerry::::" wrote

The 31s were capable of pulling a reasonable length passenger train but not up to pulling it AND heating it. Anything much above four or five coaches would result in pathetic acceleration. They were not called Peds (pedestrian) for nothing.

John.

regarded

Oh dear, people must start looking at what loco were *designed* to do, they were designed to heat via steam and were able to do so and pull their train. Many loco's suffered a down-turn in performance when they were converted to ETH, even the Deltic's, OTOH the class 33's were able to pull the train they were designed to pull and heat it via ETH because the class were designed to do both from the outset.

likewise, the 2750HP of 47s was based on the original spec given by the btc (to which "LION" was built - looking and sounding very similar) - 2500HP for the haul and 250HP for the ETH generator. Hence they were able to do what was asked - usually.

The 31s did not perform well on the portsmouth bristol services - which would really have been a type 3 roster... hence 33s walked it. On the other hand, I had a spirited run (middle of summer) from 31 414 which was stopped at a red at Hayes & Harlington one sunday and I boarded (illegitimatetly?) for Reading. With 10 on, the performance surprised me (can't remember specifics other than being amazed at the performance - not expecting much) and I could really make the call with eyes shut as to what was up-front. I even have a piccy of a single 20(!) deputising for a failed 47 on a skeg run with 9 on... lost just 11 minutes to Derby! Now I am not suggesting that a

20 was a match for a 47, but this alone illustrates that taking one incident out of context gives a very misleading image.

there will always be exceptions and trends but taking a single article to form an opinion is a tad iffy. The 31s and 37s (still going 44 years later) specifically mentioned here were among the most long-lived of the 1955 re-vamp... they would not have been so if they weren't doing the necessary - far out-living the under-powered 40s (albeit their demise mostly down to an unfortunate combination of failures due to changing and/or vanishing work)

All that proves is that a Type 4 wasn't necessary in the first place.

Well I have and I tend to agree with the author. We used to race one along the rugby pitch which used to annoy the driver no end so once he cleared the facing crossover he slammed open the throttle.

Absolutely. BR's power classification for the early diesels was wildly optimistic. Anything below a Type 4 was a waste of time and most were put into volume production before the results of trials were known. Type 1 was a glorified shunter, Type 2 was a donkey and Type 3 was neither one thing nor the other. Too small for single working and too big for double working. As soon as Type 4's became available they were immediately substituted. BR/Derby Type 2's were sometimes used in pairs but never Brush Type 2's. The Type 3's wouldn't have been used at all on this particular line if steam hadn't been prematurely withdrawn. This sounds odd but I only ever saw the coal trains when they were empty as they took a completely different route when full.

(kim)

In message , ":::Jerry::::" writes

Was electric train heating and air braking as standard not a fault of the BRB? All it needed was to allow both systems to remain in place until both were time expired. Coaching stock could have been dual braked and heated when upgraded until the old locos disappeared. Was it not the fault of the BRB (made to by the government because they didn't fit with the final idea of a minimal fleet) ( to get rid of Hydraulic traction on the BR(W) which caused a lot of premature locos to be cut up with expensive replacements). Tax payers money has been wasted and I bet no-one takes responsibility for it.

In message , Uncle Wobbly writes

And the 7000s (class 35s?) would have made all the rest look stupid, ask any late sixties driver from Bristol.

Kenilworth

place.

No, you are missing the point, the *re engined* 31's were classed as type 2's but were in fact equal to a type 4 in many situations, I suspect if the Brush 2's had been designed and built with the EE Co. power plant the loco would have had a type 3 designation.

So you opinion was gained whilst the loco and train were traversing a facing cross over?...

And what was the train booked for, are you seriously suggesting that

wildly

working. As

Sorry but you are nothing but a clueless, your ignorance is astounding, stop reading comics and start looking for back issues of The Railway Magazine, Railway World or Modern railways and read the various articles the log actual trains and their actual performance figures etc.

agreed. high power & light weight of most (all) the hydraulics made for lively performance.

Which proves a Type 4 wasn't strictly necessary in the first place.

Whether it was traversing a facing crossover or not the typical load was still only one parcel van.

LOL. My opinion of early diesels isn't based on any magazine article. It's based on looking out of a school window eight hours a day, five days a week, for five years between September 1965 and July 1970 which is why I never learned anything :o)

(kim)

Errr ! Sorry but you are still missing the point, the re engined 31's ended up being more powerful than there original type 2 classification, if they had been *designed* with the EE Co. power plant they would have been classed either type 3 or 4 - they type 4 loco's were needed by BR.

services

traversing a

So one 'train' proves your point does it ? Stop digging or you'll be modelling the Oz railway scene soon!

designing

substituted.

different

performance

article. It's

No comment..........

Oh and Kim, if you want a good (and IMO better) free news server then look at my headers.

Thanks. It's noted and if my server goes belly-up again I'll give it a try.

(kim)

IMO it's better than Individual used to be....