|
|
Post by wanstead on Apr 2, 2020 19:04:29 GMT
Does anyone have the exact dates when this batch of battery locomotives were withdrawn from service? Looking on Flickr, it appears some of the batch were active as late as 1994, therefore clocking up a respectable 43 years service. What was the ultimate fate of these seven locomotives? |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,747 
|
Post by class411 on Apr 3, 2020 9:36:10 GMT
I'm pretty sure I saw a couple working in February 2016. If you look towards the end of This Thread there is a video containing examples of the loco's I saw. |
|
|
|
Post by MoreToJack on Apr 3, 2020 12:38:06 GMT
Although externally similar (as all of the post-1936 locomotives were), that would not have been a Pickering example. I don’t have the dates to hand (I will keep looking), but I believe there were all withdrawn during the 1990s, leaving the fleet that still exists today, the oldest of which dates to the mid-1960s and was built by MetroCammell.
|
|
|
|
Post by littlejohn on Apr 3, 2020 17:35:22 GMT
Looking at my back numbers of Capital's 'London Underground Rolling Stock'(Hardy), it appears that the last two were L58 and L59, listed but shown as withdrawn in the 1997 volume.
|
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Apr 3, 2020 17:37:33 GMT
Although externally similar (as all of the post-1936 locomotives were), that would not have been a Pickering example. I don’t have the dates to hand (I will keep looking), but I believe there were all withdrawn during the 1990s, leaving the fleet that still exists today, the oldest of which dates to the mid-1960s and was built by MetroCammell. Yes the remaining 29 locos were from 3 batches nominally 1964, 1969 and 1973. 64s and 69s from Met-Camm and the others from Crewe? So the youngest is not far off 47 years old. They all have traction motors that are pre-WW2 so there's a strong likelihood the motors will get to their centenaries! Not sure of scrapping dates of the older locos. |
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Apr 3, 2020 19:19:50 GMT
They may be old in age, but how hard do they work? Passenger trains work all day every day, but the engineering locos are lucky to work one trip a night!
|
|
|
|
Post by bigvern on Apr 4, 2020 6:27:54 GMT
L58 & L59 were withdrawn due to poor condition, I carried out an audit on L59 and had a serious defect with the brake cylinder where a linkage had broken and the aluminium casting fractured, amongst other things, this put the loco effectively beyond repair, as were a deminishing batch of locomotives, spares became unavailable, the Locomotive was withdrawn, I think L58 has been withdrawn shortly before, but this would date to have been in the Mid 90's
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2020 8:16:19 GMT
Disposal dates -
L57 25.06.87
L61 21.05.93
L55 07.06.93
L60 07.06.93
L56 27.01.97
L58 11.07.97
L59 18.07.97
|
|
|
|
Post by wanstead on Apr 4, 2020 13:38:58 GMT
Disposal dates - L57 25.06.87 L61 21.05.93 L55 07.06.93 L60 07.06.93 L56 27.01.97 L58 11.07.97 L59 18.07.97 Ah, so that tallies with the "fleet of 32 such locomotives" mentioned in the 9th edition of London's Underground, L56/L58/L59 and the 29 locos from the 1965/1969/1973 batches. Quite why this figure is repeated in the following two editions (published in 2003 and 2010) is up for debate! Presumably the Pickerings suffered the same fate as the 1985 batch, stored at Ruislip for a while before being cut up? |
|
|
|
Post by countryman on Apr 4, 2020 15:50:00 GMT
I'm a little confused about what a Pickering is. According to my Ian Allen book from ~1965, at that time there were 30 battery locomotives, 3 built by Gloucester in 1937 (L41, 42, 43), 6 by Gloucester by in 1939 (L35, 36, 38, 39, 40), 3 by Hurst Nelson in 1951 (L55, 56, 57), 4 more by Hurst Nelson in 1952, (L58-61) 1 built by Acton Works (L76) and 13 being built by Metro Cammell from 1965. Also listed are 14 Ballast Motor Cars built in 1923, (L62-75) but there is no builder's name associated. So as these numbers tie up with the post above, I assume these are the Pickerings. As only L56-61 are listed above and these 7 are the lowest numbers of the 14, what happened to L62-75?
Apart from this batch of 14, all the rest are listed as Battery Locomotives, but these are Ballast Motor Cars. Would I be right in assuming that the Battery Locomotives only ran on battery power, or could they run off track power as well, but the ballast motors only ran off track power?
|
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Apr 4, 2020 15:59:07 GMT
I'm a little confused about what a Pickering is. According to my Ian Allen book from ~1965, at that time there were 30 battery locomotives, 3 built by Gloucester in 1937 (L41, 42, 43), 6 by Gloucester by in 1939 (L35, 36, 38, 39, 40), 3 by Hurst Nelson in 1951 (L55, 56, 57), 4 more by Hurst Nelson in 1952, (L58-61) 1 built by Acton Works (L76) and 13 being built by Metro Cammell from 1965. Also listed are 14 Ballast Motor Cars built in 1923, (L62-75) but there is no builder's name associated. So as these numbers tie up with the post above, I assume these are the Pickerings. As only L56-61 are listed above and these 7 are the lowest numbers of the 14, what happened to L62-75? Apart from this batch of 14, all the rest are listed as Battery Locomotives, but these are Ballast Motor Cars. Would I be right in assuming that the Battery Locomotives only ran on battery power, or could they run off track power as well, but the ballast motors only ran off track power? Here's some info about R Y Pickering; www.gracesguide.co.uk/R._Y._Pickering_and_CoI'm not sure whether they built those locos, but that's the name I seem to recall rather than Hurst Nelson. And on the power question, the LUL Battery Locos run on line supply most of the time. They use the battery when working within a worksite where the power is off. Also for some shunting operations. |
|
slugabed
Zu lang am schnuller.
Posts: 1,480
|
Post by slugabed on Apr 4, 2020 17:26:08 GMT
...Also listed are 14 Ballast Motor Cars built in 1923, (L62-75) but there is no builder's name associated.....Would I be right in assuming that the Battery Locomotives only ran on battery power, or could they run off track power as well, but the ballast motors only ran off track power? The Ballast Motors were in effect single-ended electric locomotives converted (in 1954/5 at Acton Works) from Standard Stock DMs. |
|
|
|
Post by underover on Apr 5, 2020 8:33:12 GMT
Although externally similar (as all of the post-1936 locomotives were), that would not have been a Pickering example. I don’t have the dates to hand (I will keep looking), but I believe there were all withdrawn during the 1990s, leaving the fleet that still exists today, the oldest of which dates to the mid-1960s and was built by MetroCammell. Yes the remaining 29 locos were from 3 batches nominally 1964, 1969 and 1973. 64s and 69s from Met-Camm and the others from Crewe? So the youngest is not far off 47 years old. They all have traction motors that are pre-WW2 so there's a strong likelihood the motors will get to their centenaries! Not sure of scrapping dates of the older locos. Pretty sure 1921 rings a bell. I have definitely seen castings on several locos with that year. |
|
|
|
Post by littlejohn on Apr 5, 2020 12:14:24 GMT
Disposal dates - L57 25.06.87 L61 21.05.93 L55 07.06.93 L60 07.06.93 L56 27.01.97 L58 11.07.97 L59 18.07.97 Ah, so that tallies with the "fleet of 32 such locomotives" mentioned in the 9th edition of London's Underground, L56/L58/L59 and the 29 locos from the 1965/1969/1973 batches. Quite why this figure is repeated in the following two editions (published in 2003 and 2010) is up for debate! Presumably the Pickerings suffered the same fate as the 1985 batch, stored at Ruislip for a while before being cut up? The booklet I referenced above is dated July 1997, so that ties in nicely with L56 being disposed of in January and the other two during July |
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Apr 5, 2020 13:00:57 GMT
They may be old in age, but how hard do they work? Passenger trains work all day every day, but the engineering locos are lucky to work one trip a night! Present day operations require 22 battery*** locos to be made available, enough to operate 11 engineering trains in any weekend i.e. 22 locos + 11 engineering trains mid-week in any week i.e. also 22 locos The latter include such workings as Triangle sdgs and Parsons Green regular trips, etc, as well as Ruislip shunting needs. Not all 22 are used of course, this is the planned capacity to determine works from; indeed most of the time the demand does not approach this number. BUT be careful how all that is interpreted, one train could go out on a Saturday, go back to Ruislip, not go on charge, and do a different working on a Sunday, but be counted as one, as it is not different than another train that sets out on a Friday night and does not retrun to Ruislip until Monday morning. Another way to think of it is 22 locos are required each week to have two charge cycles - 22 to be charged ready for each weekend, and 22 to be charged for each mid-week. But even that needs explaining, some duties require minimal battery work, it just means the fleet has to be available cover 44 charge cycles every 7 days if business needs demanded it. *** this is BoBo battery locos only, it does not include any Schoema, in any form of existence |
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Apr 5, 2020 13:13:40 GMT
I'm a little confused about what a Pickering is. According to my Ian Allen book from ~1965, at that time there were 30 battery locomotives, 3 built by Gloucester in 1937 (L41, 42, 43), 6 by Gloucester by in 1939 (L35, 36, 38, 39, 40), 3 by Hurst Nelson in 1951 (L55, 56, 57), 4 more by Hurst Nelson in 1952, (L58-61) 1 built by Acton Works (L76) and 13 being built by Metro Cammell from 1965. Also listed are 14 Ballast Motor Cars built in 1923, (L62-75) but there is no builder's name associated. So as these numbers tie up with the post above, I assume these are the Pickerings. As only L56-61 are listed above and these 7 are the lowest numbers of the 14, what happened to L62-75? Apart from this batch of 14, all the rest are listed as Battery Locomotives, but these are Ballast Motor Cars. Would I be right in assuming that the Battery Locomotives only ran on battery power, or could they run off track power as well, but the ballast motors only ran off track power? Here's some info about R Y Pickering; www.gracesguide.co.uk/R._Y._Pickering_and_CoI'm not sure whether they built those locos, but that's the name I seem to recall rather than Hurst Nelson. And on the power question, the LUL Battery Locos run on line supply most of the time. They use the battery when working within a worksite where the power is off. Also for some shunting operations. IIMU Pickering was the sub-contractor who actually assembled them on their site, but the contract /might/ have actually been awarded elsewhere, it's one of those things I've tried digging into and got nowhere, apart from seeing Hurst Nelson in the same sources as above. Pickering had tenuous links through some common Directors to NBL (North British Locomotive) although there is no evidence to my knowledge that NBL had anything to do with LT battery locos. |
|
|
|
Post by miff on Apr 5, 2020 15:32:40 GMT
Fascinating to hear that the battery locos still use pre-war traction motors. Is there some operational advantage to this or is it now just the case that nothing else would fit?
|
|
|
|
Post by zbang on Apr 5, 2020 16:47:05 GMT
Fascinating to hear that the battery locos still use pre-war traction motors. Is there some operational advantage to this or is it now just the case that nothing else would fit? I suspect it's more a matter of "It's working, why change?"
|
|
|
|
Post by underover on Apr 5, 2020 20:40:05 GMT
Fascinating to hear that the battery locos still use pre-war traction motors. Is there some operational advantage to this or is it now just the case that nothing else would fit? The sheer size of them is very helpful. The more weight on the loco the better as it aids adhesion (one of the reasons the 09 mod is not well liked by loco drivers, you don't have as many batteries) but also they act a giant heat sink being that large, allowing them to run at slower speeds for longer than a passenger train could (pulling cable/ rail etc) without causing motor damage. |
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Apr 6, 2020 10:55:17 GMT
Interesting comment about batteries weight on the rebuilds .... is it right though .... I'm genuinely asking the question because IIMU each time batteries are replaced [which has always been more often than once every rebuild] the decreasing weight and size per cell as manufacturing becomes more efficient has each time allowed more cells to give a greater overall battery capacity in Amp-hr. I have a whole list of battery values over time, ever since the first 1930s build, not to hand, I'll have to dig it out, and there is a continuous upwards drift. The recent rebuilds are the largest in terms of Amp-hr but smallest size per cell with more cells[?]. But I still thought the more of these smaller cells makes the overall weight more or less the same. Is it perhaps some other kit has been removed at rebuild ?
|
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Apr 6, 2020 12:23:06 GMT
Battery capacity.
Thw values I have are:
768 Ah as built 1936
924 Ah post war
1008/1026/1027 Ah by 1970s
1190/1197 Ah by 1990s
1250 Ah 201x refurbishment.
The exception was 1985 batch that were 900 Ah new, and, question, possibly never lived long enough to life expire their batteries ?
That's not to mean each batch was new with a Ah value and remained fixed at that value, they were progressively increased over time as battery life expired.
My point is that the current locos in service went from 1008-1027 Ah when built through 1190/1197 Ah to 1250 Ah on rebuild, the more compact cells allowing more cells in the same battery compartment that ought to have maintained most of the overall battery weight.
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,747
|
Post by class411 on Apr 6, 2020 14:18:48 GMT
Are these lead acid?
|
|
|
|
Post by t697 on Apr 6, 2020 15:41:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Apr 6, 2020 16:28:51 GMT
Yes confirmed always all lead acid, including the recent rebuilds.
The cell capacity:weight and capacity:size ratio improvements are due to manufacture and materials changes.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,786
|
Post by Chris M on Apr 6, 2020 17:08:35 GMT
Lead acid is still the best battery technology for applications that need high current and frequent charge-discharge cycles
|
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Apr 6, 2020 17:22:21 GMT
When I was an engineer in the old GPO, the batteries I maintained in the power room, had replacement lead 'cells'(hugh sheets) Did the batteries on the locos have the same? |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on Apr 6, 2020 19:07:15 GMT
Which traction motors do they have? Something similar to WT54 on the pre-1938 and Q stock?
|
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Apr 6, 2020 20:25:24 GMT
When I was an engineer in the old GPO, the batteries I maintained in the power room, had replacement lead 'cells'(hugh sheets) Did the batteries on the locos have the same?  that's real old technology, but knowing the GPO it was also probably "if it ain't broke don't fix it". AFAIK all the battery locos have had standard off the shelf makers cells (i.e. COTS kit); for the more recent batteries I've got the actual cells makers and specs somewhere. Don't know about the earlier batteries. The rebuilds have 168 Exide 10EPzS cells that replaced 160 Chloride XTLBF39C cells. |
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Apr 6, 2020 20:30:27 GMT
Which traction motors do they have? Something similar to WT54 on the pre-1938 and Q stock? Stand to be corrected but AFAIK today they are all (slightly) modified WT54s. I think the mod might simply be that any armature or carcass overhaul would have brought them up to the latest contemporary insulation standard, which tends to alter a motors characterstics. The 1938 batch as built had MV 145AZ motors, don't know if they got exchanged. |
|
|
|
Post by underover on Apr 6, 2020 20:34:14 GMT
Interesting comment about batteries weight on the rebuilds .... is it right though .... I'm genuinely asking the question because IIMU each time batteries are replaced [which has always been more often than once every rebuild] the decreasing weight and size per cell as manufacturing becomes more efficient has each time allowed more cells to give a greater overall battery capacity in Amp-hr. I have a whole list of battery values over time, ever since the first 1930s build, not to hand, I'll have to dig it out, and there is a continuous upwards drift. The recent rebuilds are the largest in terms of Amp-hr but smallest size per cell with more cells[?]. But I still thought the more of these smaller cells makes the overall weight more or less the same. Is it perhaps some other kit has been removed at rebuild ? The cab has been increased in length both ends, meaning full sized batteries were replaced with 1/2 sized replacements in the 2 battery bays nearest the cab on both ends. |
|
that's real old technology, but knowing the GPO it was also probably "if it ain't broke don't fix it".
