am i going mad or are 57's just 47's

cs1000 · Post by **cs1000** » Tue May 27, 2003 8:39 pm

am i going mad or are 57's just 47's that have been revamped ?
and how many are there ?

there were lot's at nueaton on sataday 24/05/03

mikey2001 · Post by **mikey2001** » Tue May 27, 2003 8:42 pm

Yep, they certainly are. According to Wigan CRDC there are 19 Class 57s in existance at the moment, with 9 currently under conversion from Class 47.

spartacus · Post by **spartacus** » Wed May 28, 2003 11:09 am

1960s Brush Type 4 on the outside, 1990s (

) GM product on the inside.

n863dwt · Post by **n863dwt** » Wed May 28, 2003 11:59 am

there may be an external similarity but that could be said about the 47 and some other diesel units and perhaps even electric loco's

its not even just inside that the differences are.....

the plain 57/0's are owned by freightliner and they are basicly (as far as i can see) just renumbered and basicly overhauled

the 57/3's are the most eye catching of the class and there are very few similarities it is again just the body shape as most if not all electrics are different

and then there are the forthcoming 57/6's ill say more once i see an non prototype 57/6...!

but the body is the only real diference

personaly i think it is a great idea it gives each unit a second shot at life with increased reliability so thaat it is like new

ThinLizzy · Post by **ThinLizzy** » Wed May 28, 2003 5:22 pm

I think its scanderlous. You take an old loco, and a really old loco, mix and match the parts into one body, give it a new headlight and a lick of paint, and pretend its a new train. Don't get me wrong, i feel the same way about 442s!

andy8767 · Post by **andy8767** » Sat Oct 25, 2003 11:01 pm

I can tell you from my own experience that yes a class 57 is a 47 with a new power unit and they are .!!
They have a lower power at rail than a 47 and I call them gutless wonders as they are regularly put on the front of 1200 ton trains from Southampton to Crewe and are not as good by a long shot as a good Class 47!
I would personally like to see them all driven off a cliff as I would 86501 which is equally as awful.Believe me If you worked on them you would feel the same way!

snowcrashandy · Post by **snowcrashandy** » Sat Oct 25, 2003 11:11 pm

spartacus wrote:1960s Brush Type 4 on the outside, 1990s ( ) GM product on the inside.

1960s Brush and 1970s GM inside (plus a Brush alternator.....)

The EMD engines are reconditioned/rebuilt rather than new, for example 57601's engine was originally built as a powerpack for an offshore drilling rig in Mexico in 1970.

EMD haven't built 645 series engines for some years now and no longer suplly spare parts either.

Cheers,

Andy.

GatExp · Post by **GatExp** » Sat Oct 25, 2003 11:12 pm

Oh dear.
That's not exactly 'Onward and Upward' by our illustrious Captains of Rail Industry is it?
Still, what's new.

jimbob · Post by **jimbob** » Sun Oct 26, 2003 12:16 am

ThinLizzy wrote:I think its scanderlous. You take an old loco, and a really old loco, mix and match the parts into one body, give it a new headlight and a lick of paint, and pretend its a new train. Don't get me wrong, i feel the same way about 442s!

How can you compare the two!

442's are/were a compleatly new coach fitted with recycled traction motors!

Stooopidperson · Post by **Stooopidperson** » Sun Oct 26, 2003 6:39 am

jimbob wrote:
ThinLizzy wrote:I think its scanderlous. You take an old loco, and a really old loco, mix and match the parts into one body, give it a new headlight and a lick of paint, and pretend its a new train. Don't get me wrong, i feel the same way about 442s!
How can you compare the two! 442's are/were a compleatly new coach fitted with recycled traction motors!

So which train were the traction motors from?

doownyl · Post by **doownyl** » Sun Oct 26, 2003 8:18 am

Stooopidperson wrote:So which train were the traction motors from?

The 4-REPs. Typical Southern style - total upgrade of the LSWR line, complete with brand new stock - they just couldn't resist 'recycling' something! Having said that, the 442s are IMO the best multiple unit ever built - in addition to comfort etc, I've never known a failure of one and they go like Concorde on drugs.

nightbeaver911 · Post by **nightbeaver911** » Sun Oct 26, 2003 9:15 am

The 442s were a exerlent idea since BR had no money!

Just incase anyone was wondering according to FGW although the 57s are more powerful, they struggle over the hills in the south where as a 47 wouldnt.

jimbob · Post by **jimbob** » Sun Oct 26, 2003 1:15 pm

doownyl wrote:
Stooopidperson wrote:So which train were the traction motors from?
The 4-REPs. Typical Southern style - total upgrade of the LSWR line, complete with brand new stock - they just couldn't resist 'recycling' something! Having said that, the 442s are IMO the best multiple unit ever built - in addition to comfort etc, I've never known a failure of one and they go like Concorde on drugs.

BTW "Stooopidperson" it was the 4-REPs that push/pulled the 4-TCs fro waterloo to bornemouth then were detatched & a class 33/1 put on to the 4-TC to pull/push to weymouth & back.

jimbob · Post by **jimbob** » Sun Oct 26, 2003 1:17 pm

doownyl wrote:
Stooopidperson wrote:So which train were the traction motors from?
The 4-REPs. Typical Southern style - total upgrade of the LSWR line, complete with brand new stock - they just couldn't resist 'recycling' something! Having said that, the 442s are IMO the best multiple unit ever built - in addition to comfort etc, I've never known a failure of one and they go like Concorde on drugs.

I would have to agree, IMHO they are the best 3rd rail EMU. The fact that they look like 309's has nothing to do with this you understand!

buffy500 · Post by **buffy500** » Sun Oct 26, 2003 2:50 pm

jimbob wrote: I would have to agree, IMHO they are the best 3rd rail EMU. The fact that they look like 309's has nothing to do with this you understand!

They just prove that you can make that shape look atractive, shame they did not learn it from the 309 !