Talk:British Rail Class 50

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Trains: in UK / Locomotives Low‑importance Trains Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated projects or task forces: /  This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Locomotives task force.

I've Edited a large part of the portuguese locos description based on info from an old EE panflet wich by itself was a reprint of (and I quote here) Engineering Feb. 21/1969 ref. TR100 As a side notice I just would like to add that instead of being more basic it seems that the requirements for the 1800 were in fact much more demanding (not in terms of electronic usage but in terms of reliability exigence) than those for the class50 itself. Feel free to re-edit or add some more info Sotavento (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It says in the text that these were originally known in pre-TOPS days as 'English Electric Type 4'. Although they were indeed built by EE and were in the Type 4 power band, we only used that term for what later became Class 40 (or as we called it then 'Big D'). When we used to see D400-D449 being hammered up and down the West Coast Main Line in the early 70's, we just used to call them D400's. I think that use of the 'Hoover' nickname only really started when they were transferred to the GW main line.ChrisRed 08:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As you say the "Type 4s" became Class 40. Most of the people I knew called these "DP2s" as they were based on that prototype. Names such as "Hoovers" were introduced by a new generation of train-spotters, but I don't know if they ever became popular with older fans who stuck with the titles given in the Ian Allan "Combineds".Williamgeorgefraser 15:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamgeorgefraser (talk • contribs)

The following links were removed (rightly?) with the reason WP:LINKFARM. While arguably not appropriate for inclusion in the main article, the following links are directly related to the subject matter and may assist readers in further research:

All of these still work, but are of lesser usefulness than the pages in "External Links":

• Class 50 Hoover Bashers – Enthusiasts' site, with extensive photographic collection of Class (+ videos)
• Vaclads_online – forum for Class 50 bashers
• http://www.class50.net – annotated photo gallery of Class 50s preserved or under restoration

Idea was to add these as embedded (reference) links, however some seem to be rather poorly...

• http://members.lycos.co.uk/valiant50/ -- DEAD LINK -- "Manchester Class 50 Group" - Former owners of preserved locomotive no. 50015 Valiant -- loco is now (as of 2007) owned by the "Bury Valiant Group" and based on the East Lancashire Railway ("Latest" news from ELR).

• http://www.williton49.freeserve.co.uk DEAD LINK -- "Project Defiance - Owners of preserved locomotive no. 50049/50149 Defiance."
  • NB 50049 may have moved to ownership of The Fifty Fund (see below)

• Renown Repulse Restoration Group UNDER CONSTRUCTION (since Dec 2008, and still as of Jan 27 2009...) - "Owners of preserved locomotives nos. 50029 and 50030, which are currently undergoing extensive restoration."

• The Fifty Fund - LIVE - "Owners of preserved locomotives nos. 50031, 50035 and 50044. Includes class history, specifications and more information."
  • Possibly also 50049

• Class Forty Appeal - LIVE - "Owners of 50007 Sir Edward Elgar"

Lack of time precludes further work now, but more to be done later...

EdJogg (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As is visible here [1], 50035 is now carrying the number '50135' and load haul livery. Should the preservation article be updated to reflect this, or do we wait until the restoration is completed? Tom walker (talk) 08:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh! What's wrong with Rail Blue?

I see no problem with updating the article now, and you might as well use the photo as a ref. It's not really the done thing, as refs go, but it'll do for now. EdJogg (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could just refer to the Fifty Fund website www.fiftyfund.org.uk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.143.241 (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal

In many ways, the locomotives were a more powerful and lighter version of the earlier Class 40, and also included a host of complex electronic control gear, which arguably proved to be their achilles heel.

The article has already said the vehicles were derived from the British Rail DP2, why the 40s? why not 37s or 55s?

"..arguably proved..." is problematic too. 87.102.67.84 (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As this picture [2] shows, early in its preservation 50017 carried the number '50117' . As the fleet list shows 50035's current '50135' number, shouldn't it also show 50017's previous number? Tom walker (talk) 11:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. And both should note that the numbers are fictitious and were never carried in BR service.

EdJogg (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, only one Class 50 officially carried a 501xx number - 50049 alias 50149, after modification with Cl. 37/5 bogies (engine derated to 2450 bhp). --Redrose64 (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is currently named in accordance the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways naming conventions for British rolling stock allocated a TOPS number. A proposal to change this convention and/or its scope is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Naming convention, where your comments would be welcome

A few people have asked me; What was the 'Hoover' sound? I am old enough to remember it well from standing next to these engines during stops at Warrington - when my summer and Christmas student job was to throw mail-sacks into the Mk1 full brake next to the engine, and while watching engine changes at Crewe.

I wouldn't call it a 'sucking' sound - it was actually a two-tone 'drone' - a bit like the dreaded bagpipes. It was made by the centrifugal engine air intake filters, which I believe were made by a firm called Vokes. These drew the engine air in through a rapidly-spinning drum, and any nasties were thrown into a filter-paper lining inside the drum. The 'low' note of the two was a low 'moaning' sound, and the 'high' note was more of a high-pitched 'whirr', which was a sharp 6th/flat 7th above it, plus one octave. For the non-musical, go Do-Ray-Me etc but stop at 'La' then go up only half a note instead of up to 'Tee'. The two notes would slightly 'swell' and 'fade' relative to each other, so some times the low note was loudest, and some times the high.

It was distinctive, but it wasn't very loud, and you could only really hear it when the engine was on tickover. As soon as the driver blew the brakes and notched-up, the 'Hoover' sound was lost below the engine exhaust and the hydrostatic radiator fan, which is the same sound now as it was before rebuild. We were warned to stay clear of the grilles on the side of the engines, which could suddenly slam shut automatically, and trap your fingers. Happy days. ChrisRed 5.81.76.5 (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British Rail Class 50. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090405033217/http://www.class50.net:80/ to http://www.class50.net/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah i am 50026.indomitable im not logged in for some reason here. Thanks for your reply. Im still confused do i need to link sources somewhere because i know my edits are true as i work on both 50026 and 50021. there is evidence in the form of our facebook group and many videos on youtube. I know the info showing on wikapedia is old now and i wanted to change it so its not misleading i see why you deleted. Your help is greatly appreciated. 2A04:4A43:4BCF:E191:2418:503D:A13F:8A1E (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this page may help you get started on citing sources. If you have any more queries, feel free to ask! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The {{More footnotes needed}} maintenance template has been present on this article for over 10 years now - there are a large number of inline citations covering much of the content... is it perhaps time to remove the maintenance template? Danners430 (talk) 10:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]