What's the most powerful Locomotive on UK Rails?

[PYROOGOBBO]

I'm led to believe it's a 4 way between the class 59, class 60, class 92 and class 90. maybe with the 59 being the winner? (there was a video with a 59 pushing a HST with a fully loaded freight somewhere on youtube i remember)

sorry if noob topic :').

 

[ainsworth74]

What are we using to measure 'power'?

 

[captainbigun]

hp = 92
starting te = 70

 

[route:oxford]

What are we using to measure 'power'?

Following through from that.

Isn't power to weight ratio also something to take into consideration?

 

[PYROOGOBBO]

Like for example, which one has the most pulling horsepower (can tow the biggest weight without struggling to a stand still), Just lets say which one has the most muscle?

 

[najaB]

Like for example, which one has the most pulling horsepower (can tow the biggest weight without struggling to a stand still), Just lets say which one has the most muscle?

Then it will be the Class 70 as posted above. TE = tractive effort.

 

[Minilad]

I thought it was the Eurotunnel locomotives?

 

[PYROOGOBBO]

Then it will be the Class 70 as posted above. TE = tractive effort.

Damn the 70 is quite the beast O_o

 

[cactustwirly]

I thought it was the 60

 

[Ash Bridge]

If the question was what is the all time most powerful (diesel) locomotive on UK rails purely on engine horsepower then it must surely be the Hawker Sidderley/Brush 'Kestrel' diesel electric.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Errrrrrr, yeah..... What he said ^ here. was gonna suggest HS4000 myself.....

Looked like a rounded off 47 as Hawker Siddley was a parent company of Brush and sulzer at the time

Kestrel had 4000 hp available, and was the single most powerful diesel powered locomotive to run in this country. It was a prototype which never saw UK production, however was exported to russia and reverse engineered. It was believed to have been scrapped in the 1990's but rumours of its existence still surface....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As for electrics think the 91 has more horses on tap than a 90, but the tractive effort is lower than a 92 so as pointed out earlier, where do you draw the line as to what makes a more powerful loco?....

 

[Ash Bridge]

Errrrrrr, yeah..... What he said ^ here. was gonna suggest HS4000 myself.....

Looked like a rounded off 47 as Hawker Siddley was a parent company of Brush and sulzer at the time

Kestrel had 4000 hp available, and was the single most powerful diesel powered locomotive to run in this country. It was a prototype which never saw UK production, however was exported to russia and reverse engineered. It was believed to have been scrapped in the 1990's but rumours of its existence still surface....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As for electrics think the 91 has more horses on tap than a 90, but the tractive effort is lower than a 92 so as pointed out earlier, where do you draw the line as to what makes a more powerful loco?....

Yes, what a beast, and a handsome one at that! Think it was about 5/6ft longer than a 47 (more like a 50) sure it also ended up with 47 bogies as BR weren't happy with the loco's weight and axle loading when first introduced, wonder what it sounded like at full chat?

 

[HLE]

Class 70.

 

[Deepgreen]

Errrrrrr, yeah..... What he said ^ here. was gonna suggest HS4000 myself.....

Looked like a rounded off 47 as Hawker Siddley was a parent company of Brush and sulzer at the time

Kestrel had 4000 hp available, and was the single most powerful diesel powered locomotive to run in this country. It was a prototype which never saw UK production, however was exported to russia and reverse engineered. It was believed to have been scrapped in the 1990's but rumours of its existence still surface....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As for electrics think the 91 has more horses on tap than a 90, but the tractive effort is lower than a 92 so as pointed out earlier, where do you draw the line as to what makes a more powerful loco?....

'Kestrel's starting tractive effort of 100,000lb was also pretty amazing for its time, showing its design requirement for heavy freight as well as high speed passenger. I presume BR would have created a Type 6 banding for its production run if it had happened, as it was in the 4000hp+ band.

 

[talltim]

Kestrel
Power output Engine: 4,000 hp (2,983 kW) @1100 rpm. At rail: 2,500 kW (3,353 hp)
Tractive effort 450 kN (100,000 lbf) maximum 270 kN (61,000 lbf) @ 30 km/h (19 mph) 187 kN (42,000 lbf) @ 45 km/h (28 mph)
Class 59
Power output Engine: 3,300 bhp (2,460 kW)
Tractive effort Maximum: 508 kN (114,000 lbf) at 11 km/h (7 mph),Continuous: 290 kN (65,000 lbf) at 23 km/h (14 mph)
Class 60
Power output Engine: 3,100 bhp (2,300 kW), at rail: 2,415 bhp (1,801 kW)[1]
Tractive effort Maximum: 474 kN (106,500 lbf)
Class 68
Power output 3,800 hp (2,800 kW) at 1,740 rpm
Tractive effort 317 kN (71,000 lbf)
Class 88
Power output 6,700 hp (5 MW) (electrical), 1-2.8 MW (diesel)
Tractive effort more than 475 kN (107,000 lbf) starting
Class 70
Power output Engine: 3,690 bhp (2,750 kW)
Tractive effort 534 kN (120,000 lbf) (starting)
Class 90
Power output 5,000 bhp (3,730 kW)
Tractive effort 258 kN (58,000 lbf)
Class 91
Power output 6,480 hp (4,830 kW)
Tractive effort max 190 kN (43,000 lbf), continuous 107 kN (24,000 lbf) @ 153 km/h (95 mph)
Class 92
Power output 25 kV: 6,760 hp (5.04 MW), 750 V: 5,360 hp (4.00 MW)
Tractive effort 360 kN (81,000 lbf), 400 kN (90,000 lbf) with 'boost' mode applied
Later model EuroTunnel Shuttle loco
Power output 9,400 hp (7 MW)
Tractive effort max. 400 kN (90,000 lbf) continuous 310 kN (70,000 lbf) @ 65 km/h (18 m/s)

So, on TE, its the 70 and on hp its the EuroTunnel Loco. Of course there's two of them per train...

 

[Deepgreen]

Kestrel
Power output Engine: 4,000 hp (2,983 kW) @1100 rpm. At rail: 2,500 kW (3,353 hp)
Tractive effort 450 kN (100,000 lbf) maximum 270 kN (61,000 lbf) @ 30 km/h (19 mph) 187 kN (42,000 lbf) @ 45 km/h (28 mph)
Class 59
Power output Engine: 3,300 bhp (2,460 kW)
Tractive effort Maximum: 508 kN (114,000 lbf) at 11 km/h (7 mph),Continuous: 290 kN (65,000 lbf) at 23 km/h (14 mph)
Class 60
Power output Engine: 3,100 bhp (2,300 kW), at rail: 2,415 bhp (1,801 kW)[1]
Tractive effort Maximum: 474 kN (106,500 lbf)
Class 68
Power output 3,800 hp (2,800 kW) at 1,740 rpm
Tractive effort 317 kN (71,000 lbf)
Class 88
Power output 6,700 hp (5 MW) (electrical), 1-2.8 MW (diesel)
Tractive effort more than 475 kN (107,000 lbf) starting
Class 70
Power output Engine: 3,690 bhp (2,750 kW)
Tractive effort 534 kN (120,000 lbf) (starting)
Class 90
Power output 5,000 bhp (3,730 kW)
Tractive effort 258 kN (58,000 lbf)
Class 91
Power output 3,690 bhp (4,830 kW)
Tractive effort max 190 kN (43,000 lbf), continuous 107 kN (24,000 lbf) @ 153 km/h (95 mph)
Class 92
Power output 25 kV: 6,760 hp (5.04 MW), 750 V: 5,360 hp (4.00 MW)
Tractive effort 360 kN (81,000 lbf), 400 kN (90,000 lbf) with 'boost' mode applied
Later model EuroTunnel Shuttle loco
Power output 9,400 hp (7 MW)
Tractive effort max. 400 kN (90,000 lbf) continuous 310 kN (70,000 lbf) @ 65 km/h (18 m/s)

So, on TE, its the 70 and on hp its the EuroTunnel Loco. Of course there's two of them per train...

I think the power output for class 91s is around 6480hp, rather than 3690hp. Also, how are they going to get 107,000lb TE out of a Bo-Bo class 88, or will the 88 be a Co-Co? Specs. I have seen suggest they will be Bo-Bo with a TE of 70,600lb in both modes. The same specs. also give an electric power output of 4mW, and a diesel power output of 700kW (just under 1000hp).

 

[Ash Bridge]

It's interesting that the class 59 achieves a TE figure of 114500lbs, opposed to the class 60 figure of 106500lbs yet when the 59s were trialled on the coal trains out of Liverpool Docks they were found to be much less sure footed then the class 60 were on identical trains, there could of course be other factors such as the 60 perhaps having a superior wheelslip control system over their U.S. cousins?

 

[talltim]

I think the power output for class 91s is around 6480hp, rather than 3690hp. Also, how are they going to get 107,000lb TE out of a Bo-Bo class 88, or will the 88 be a Co-Co? Specs. I have seen suggest they will be Bo-Bo with a TE of 70,600lb in both modes. The same specs. also give an electric power output of 4mW, and a diesel power output of 700kW (just under 1000hp).

Figures are from Wikipedia, take with a pinch of salt... Although I seem to have messed up copy and paste on the 91.... I've amended my post

The press release here http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...-electro-diesel-locomotives-from-vossloh.html for the 88 says TE of 317 kN (71 264lb) which is close to the figure you have. Possibly the higher figure from wiki comes from a European version, its not clear.

 

[flimflam]

It's interesting that the class 59 achieves a TE figure of 114500lbs, opposed to the class 60 figure of 106500lbs yet when the 59s were trialled on the coal trains out of Liverpool Docks they were found to be much less sure footed then the class 60 were on identical trains, there could of course be other factors such as the 60 perhaps having a superior wheelslip control system over their U.S. cousins?

I regularly drive class 60 and 70 locos. The 70s are prone to low speed slipping but always cope well and settle down above 10 mph. The class 60 are sure footed and far less likely to slip so it's horses for courses. In overall performance, the 70 has the edge over the 60 in every way. 66s meanwhile have a wheelslip detection system that is far less superior than its drivers ears. It's rubbish to be honest and a driver who knows what he's doing is far more capable of keeping the train moving than just leaving it to the computer to deal with. Although I'm trained on 59s I've not been near one in 7 years or so, and never hauled any real trains with them. Assuming the wheelslip control isn't dissimilar to that on a 66 it may have been their downfall on the Warrington based trial.

 

[Ash Bridge]

I regularly drive class 60 and 70 locos. The 70s are prone to low speed slipping but always cope well and settle down above 10 mph. The class 60 are sure footed and far less likely to slip so it's horses for courses. In overall performance, the 70 has the edge over the 60 in every way. 66s meanwhile have a wheelslip detection system that is far less superior than its drivers ears. It's rubbish to be honest and a driver who knows what he's doing is far more capable of keeping the train moving than just leaving it to the computer to deal with. Although I'm trained on 59s I've not been near one in 7 years or so, and never hauled any real trains with them. Assuming the wheelslip control isn't dissimilar to that on a 66 it may have been their downfall on the Warrington based trial.

Many thanks for this, its always interesting to hear from the guys who actually drive and have first hand experience of the loco's.

 

[3141]

Figures are from Wikipedia, take with a pinch of salt... Although I seem to have messed up copy and paste on the 91.... I've amended my post

The press release here http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...-electro-diesel-locomotives-from-vossloh.html for the 88 says TE of 317 kN (71 264lb) which is close to the figure you have. Possibly the higher figure from wiki comes from a European version, its not clear.

How about class 58? I recall that one of them hauled a train of record length, so possibly also record weight.

 

[Ash Bridge]

How about class 58? I recall that one of them hauled a train of record length, so possibly also record weight.

Was that not the class 59 (59005) which broke the European haulage record for a single locomotive on a test train back in 1991, not far off 12000 tonnes! I think the class 58 are only rated around 60000lbs TE.

Just to add, I had forgot that BR also proposed a class 65 diesel electric freight loco, that would have had a 4500bhp Mirrlees power unit installed and a top speed of 75mph making it more suitable for freightliner work than the 60mph class 60.

 

[flimflam]

Was that not the class 59 (59005) which broke the European haulage record for a single locomotive on a test train back in 1991, not far off 12000 tonnes! I think the class 58 are only rated around 60000lbs TE.

Just to add, I had forgot that BR also proposed a class 65 diesel electric freight loco, that would have had a 4500bhp Mirrlees power unit installed and a top speed of 75mph making it more suitable for freightliner work than the 60mph class 60.

58s for a type 5 were pretty dissapointing to be honest, had lots of wheelslip issues amongst other reliability issues.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

What about class 373s (if you count the powered bogie in the lead coach)?

 

[james60059]

The 68 has a bit of umph about it, especially seeing one shifting the Mountsorrel - Crewe loaded ballast away from Stenson Junction (21?? loaded IOA's). Ialways though 6 axles were better than 4 until a driver at Kingmoor Open Day said they can handle the load better than a 66 . It's always nice to hear a drivers viewpoint on loco's, after all they drive them

 

[furnessvale]

The 68 has a bit of umph about it, especially seeing one shifting the Mountsorrel - Crewe loaded ballast away from Stenson Junction (21?? loaded IOA's). Ialways though 6 axles were better than 4 until a driver at Kingmoor Open Day said they can handle the load better than a 66 . It's always nice to hear a drivers viewpoint on loco's, after all they drive them

Given that a 68 is the latest technology whereas a 66 is based on 30 year old tech, I would expect the 68 to look good.

However, 6 axles v 4 axles using the same tech, the 6 axles MUST give better adhesion, especially in less than perfect conditions.

 

[Emblematic]

Given that a 68 is the latest technology whereas a 66 is based on 30 year old tech, I would expect the 68 to look good.

However, 6 axles v 4 axles using the same tech, the 6 axles MUST give better adhesion, especially in less than perfect conditions.

MUST nothing - more axles give lower axle loading, overall adhesion is unaffected. Now if you ballast up the locomotive to keep axle loading the same, then you get more adhesion.

 

[furnessvale]

MUST nothing - more axles give lower axle loading, overall adhesion is unaffected. Now if you ballast up the locomotive to keep axle loading the same, then you get more adhesion.

Obviously!

 

[Emblematic]

Obviously!

Forum pedantry bug bites

 

[CosherB]

58s for a type 5 were pretty dissapointing to be honest, had lots of wheelslip issues amongst other reliability issues.

Really?

http://www.kentrail.org.uk/Class%2058.htm