C69 Design Faults

[roythebus]

Thinking back, does anyone know what design faults there were on the C69s when they were built?

ISTR a traincrew inspector telling me there were about 120 odd mods before the units entered service.

Some of those that spring to mind were the whistle button, located on the left side of the cab. Fine except with the brake in emergency, the driver's left hand on the deadman, he was unable to reach the whistle button with either hand!

There was the cupboard on the right side of the cab with the Deadman isolating cock and other bits in there, secured with screws. Was the driver to be issued with a screwdriver? No. They had to mod the door to take a standard control key lock.

[JR 15secs]

TP is the person who will know when he was a Motorman he did a report on C stock.

[Deleted]

Nov 14, 2009 21:11:03 GMT roythebus said:

Thinking back, does anyone know what design faults there were on the C69s when they were built?

ISTR a traincrew inspector telling me there were about 120 odd mods before the units entered service.

Some of those that spring to mind were the whistle button, located on the left side of the cab. Fine except with the brake in emergency, the driver's left hand on the deadman, he was unable to reach the whistle button with either hand!

I wonder if this was partly to do with them being based on the design of the 1967ts cabs which, being designed with ATO in mind, the issue of the driver holding the deadman did not arise?

[roythebus]

Doesn't a 67TS driver have to hold a deadman when driving in manual?

[Tom]

67TS never had a sprung TBC but there is still a vigilance button which needs to be pressed whilst in Manual.

Effectively the stock requires both hand to drive - which most people don't think about!

[metman]

If that is the case, how do the inner end 1972mk1 stock driving motors operate in the depot for shunting? Would you drive them as normal in the depot or were they provided with a vig button?

[JR 15secs]

Nov 15, 2009 19:30:38 GMT metman said:

If that is the case, how do the inner end 1972mk1 stock driving motors operate in the depot for shunting? Would you drive them as normal in the depot or were they provided with a vig button?

On the UNDMs the panels came from 38TS and had to be depressed to motor only Westinghouse brake and the middle motors had normal controls, from memory the person who designed C stock was W W Maxwell.

[towerman]

When running on tripcock the vigilence button is not "live" on 67TS hence the reason for double manning for off line stock moves.

[t697]

Of course there are very many weaknesses or 'design faults' that have been tackled over the years. A couple that come to mind are the poor rheostatic and air brake blend that made you think the brake was releasing as the rheo faded but the friction brake didn't substitute fast enough. I was in the team that improved that in about 1982/3. Then the addition of 'notch back' wheelspin control a few years later. There are some fundamental things that prevent complete fixes - the soft inter car drawgear being one and the first Parallel notch being too high is another......
PRJB thinks they are almost perfect I understand....!

[Deleted]

Nov 15, 2009 19:30:38 GMT metman said:

If that is the case, how do the inner end 1972mk1 stock driving motors operate in the depot for shunting? Would you drive them as normal in the depot or were they provided with a vig button?

The 1972 Mk1 cabs working in the middle of some 1967 stock sets retain conventional sprung dead man handles incorporated in the CTBC so if a train is being shunted as a 4 car set or, for that matter, being driven from one of these middle cabs in the event of defect. The T/Op needs just the one hand and a lot less awkward pressure than the Vigillance button needs!!

[Deleted]

I seem to recall mention of wheelslip being a problem with them, especially when wet. I also seem to remember something along the lines of many of the origional planned stop mark points had to be changed as drivers couldn't see the monitors? One other thing that got modified was the Drivers door - an interlock was added to prevent them being driven with it open.

[tubeprune]

Yes I did do a report on them. How long have you got??? :-) I worked at Baker Street when the Met depot was there and I was there when the C Stock replaced the CO/CP Stocks. First, the braking was terrible. The design was poor, having retarders and load-weigh systems working in opposition to each other. The braking was actually worse when empty. Sunday mornings were a nightmare. Even the Westinghouse was bad, It was esay to run out of air because the feed up rate on the auxiliary was too slow in release. You could run into the next station without enough air in the auxiliary to get an application.

The cab layout was horrible but it was based on the 67TS because some forward looking but misguided souls thought the whole network would go ATO in a few years. The phone was in a little compartment behind the driver's seat. This had a sprung door and the only way you could open it whilst driving was to put one arm behind your back, poke a finger under the bottom of the door and push the handset up off its rest. When it was loose, you pulled the door open so that the handset could drop to the floor. Then you could bend down and pick it up. Mind you, in those days it was only the cab to cab phone and I used it mostly to chat to the guard (if he was a chatty type) whilst doing a Circle or two.

They always had the cab door interlock but we just cut it out to get some air in the cab. Then there were the draughts, the stupid heaters in the roof, the metacones, the metacone mountings, the compressor oil refilling, the cab desk layout, the cab light switch, the window wiper controls, the side door deals, the lack of cab handrails, the cab seat, the persistent audible warnings, the volt-amp relay settings causing repeated motors dropping out, windows swinging open, rate 2 was useless, even on a dry rail so we always drove in rate 1, etc. etc. + all the other things I have thankfully forgotten.

LU train design went down the proverbial tubes after the 67TS and never really recovered. The D Stock is OK but only because it had a prototype in the 73TS, where they ironed out all the bugs. Even then they had to replace the bogies. The 83s were an insult and the 92s not much better. My impression of the 95/96s is that they are a bit better, apart from the ridiculous driving controls. We must not prejudge the new stocks, much as though we might wish to but my all time favourite is the A Stock. It is quite simply a driver's train.

[metman]

[Deleted]

One has to remember that the much-loved 38TS had many problems, not least that the doors on the "58 trailers" would open while the train was in motion.

LT design was not perfect. The "pre-war" RTs had to be taken off the road while engineers discovered how to get the brakes to work; and the first production RMs needed several hundred modifications before they worked as intended.

[metman]

Yes, the 1938 stock was not a brilliant stock! Technology and the war gave it a difficult birth. The KLL4 compressors were really designed for trams and were less reliable than the larger standard stock ones. The doors were a problem, mainly on the 1927 trailers, which was solved I believe when the brackets holding the door valves were strengthened.

When the problems were ironed out the stock ran quite well it appears, but the stock failed quickly and reliability became a real problem after 30 years in service. Even the improvements of the extra heavy overhaul did not last that long.