The Cambrian Mountaineer May 9th 2009

carpetcone · Post by **carpetcone** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 3:25 pm

For those that remember the Coalstone Haul tour, this is another chance to travel behind classic traction on the main line from our area, also helping to raise money for charity at the same time. Class 50 with class 97 (37) pilot from Shrewsbury.
http://www.spitfirerailtours.co.uk/Future%20tours2.htm

Portishead Prowler · Post by **Portishead Prowler** » Tue Apr 28, 2009 6:26 pm

I'm booked on this...anyone else going?

tonyperks · Post by **tonyperks** » Thu May 07, 2009 10:15 am

would love to go on another tour but alas I'm skint.

Portishead Prowler · Post by **Portishead Prowler** » Mon May 11, 2009 1:45 pm

Top day out (bloody long though!)! Full marks to the organisers, hope they raised a sufficiently substantial amount for charity!

chippy · Post by **chippy** » Mon May 11, 2009 2:38 pm

Portishead Prowler wrote:Top day out (bloody long though!)! Full marks to the organisers, hope they raised a sufficiently substantial amount for charity!

Was the tour late getting back?,myself and some other were waiting at bath spa,but gave up and went home after 35mins.

Post by **James** » Mon May 11, 2009 8:41 pm

The 50 failed with a coolant leak.

Portishead Prowler · Post by **Portishead Prowler** » Wed May 13, 2009 8:32 am

James wrote:The 50 failed with a coolant leak.

Every time I go on a tour with a 50, it fails. 50:50 chance of getting there I reckon *chortle*

The problems with the 50 weren't the only reason for the late running on the way back, a broken down unit (which took 5 hours to clear) between Shrewsbury and Wellington, meant that the tour was (eventually) routed via Crewe, and then reversed onto the WCML, before resuming it's booked route at Wolverhampton.

Made it an exciting day out.

I think it was exactly 90 down when we got back, not too bad when you consider it was 120 late departing Shrewsbury.

Robin Summerhill · Post by **Robin Summerhill** » Wed May 13, 2009 3:33 pm

Portishead Prowler wrote:
James wrote:The 50 failed with a coolant leak.
Every time I go on a tour with a 50, it fails. 50:50 chance of getting there I reckon *chortle*

When the 50s came to the WR they got the nickname of the 50-50s for that very reason from the workshop staff at Bath Road. They were also the cause of a three week strike because the staff bonus scheme was at that time based on availablility of locomotives for traffic.

The coming of the 50s sent availablilty dropping like a stone, together with bonus earnings. The staff thought that this rubbish had been foisted on them by management and the seeds were sown for a major row!

Whilst I know that some enthusiasts have a soft spot for these machines, I always detested them as it was their arrival on the scene in 1967 that heralded the final end of steam on BR

jules · Post by **jules** » Wed May 13, 2009 10:00 pm

I always detested them as it was their arrival on the scene in 1967 that heralded the final end of steam on BR

And I've always detested tham as their arrival on the WR in the '70s heralded the final end of diesel hydraulics on the WR, a far superior form of traction if ever there was one

Obviously the Bath Road men of the time thought the same too!

Robin Summerhill · Post by **Robin Summerhill** » Wed May 13, 2009 10:20 pm

I don't know what the 50s maintenance record and reliability level was when they were on the LMR, but certainly the Bath Road shop staff took the view that they had been lumbered with the railway equivalent of a load of old bangers to maintain.

Whether or not the hydraulics were in theory a superior design (and certainly the Germans seemed to get on well with them), in practice a "Warship" at a speed of anything above 85 felt like it was going to either fall to bits or jump the track.

They were also underpowered compared to the Brush type 4 (47s to you youngsters

), which were of course contemporaneous with the Westerns. I don't recall any views expressed by enginemen or workshop staff as to which was the best design of those two, but perhaps I wasn't listening!

jules · Post by **jules** » Wed May 13, 2009 11:03 pm

I don't know what the 50s maintenance record and reliability level was when they were on the LMR

They used to use them in pairs because they were so unreliable

The WR removed a lot of the electronics, which somewhat improved their reliability, but not much.

Robin Summerhill · Post by **Robin Summerhill** » Thu May 14, 2009 1:05 am

jules wrote: They used to use them in pairs because they were so unreliable

They used 'em in pairs to get up Shap and Beattock at a reasonble speed and for improved acceleration

At the time, as you will recall, the West Coast main line was only electrified south of Weaver Junction, and a 2700hp diesel on its own wouldn't have compared well with the 3300hp electrics on the southern leg of the journey.

A similar situation occurred for a short time in 1965 when pairs of class 37s were used on WR main line expresses.

Post by **James** » Thu May 14, 2009 6:32 pm

It's a shame the 50s were so different to their prototype: DP2. BR should never have added so many unproven electronic gimmicks (including some that would have been no use in their intended role even if they had worked) to a what had been a highly successful, powerful, yet simple and reliable design, as it turned them into a complete disaster that needed a major rebuild to become average. I really can't see how they've gained such a following.