I totally agree, it's odd that they were supposedly no good here but good enough to go abroad to work.
Again I agree, I mean the 31s had to be re-engined, the 47s had loads of engine problems then bogie cracks on 40s and peaks, westerns with bogie issues, when you look into it no train is trouble free.
No, they are not laughably emotive. Laughing at other people’s opinions is frankly incredibly rude and disrespectful. These might have been particular favourites of someone, who is naturally upset when they are scrapped. Have some respect.
70s that have mostly been stored by Freightliner. Yeah. And what about the remaining 56s, 90s and 92s? British built and doing fine (if DB maintained them properly in the case of the 90s which are doing fine in FL’s case.The 66s, 68s, 70s et al seem to do quite well, just not the stuff built here, by and large.
Totally agree, as with the 86s and 87s, says a lot about the waste on the network.
Hyper-emotive YouTube Wibble?! You mean people expressing their feelings?
Alright fair enough there.
Agreed. Doesn’t look like 23 locos. Some of it may have been removed however.
They do quite well, the 66s needed work to cut down on the vibrations in the cab and weren't they almost blacklisted because of this? The 68s apart from being pig ugly I can't comment on them and the 70s, aren't they a bit thirsty? No more of them being ordered, freightliners sitting doing nothing all that time and I've seen them trying to pull 9 cement PCA's up a slight slope, bouncing up and down violently like Zebedee at Seaham docks, so again not fault free.The 66s, 68s, 70s et al seem to do quite well, just not the stuff built here, by and large.
Don't forget that the work has been done over 2 or 3 months so no doubt some bits from the earlier processed locos was likely removed from site.
I know that 58 050 is earmarked for the NRM but what is to stop it meeting it's class mates fate?
Thanks for the list, much appreciated.
It is NOT "earmarked for the NRM" but designated by the Railway Heritage Designation Advisory Board. That is rather different - the NRM may not want it and the RHDAB could offer it elsewhere or, indeed, de-designate it.
Ouch, that "not" in capitals sure put me in my place, but I thank you for clarifying what I thought was correct. I had thought they were not one and the same, but working together as it were.
Also, looking at the pile of scrap left over, I don't really see any obvious bogie frames, traction motors, wheelsets or main frames. I am assuming a lot of "big chunk" items have been craned into wagons and disposed of. There also doesn't appear to be a big plie of radiators or bodyside doors, so clearly some stuff has already gone
Their lack of sure-footedness (due to no wheel slip prevention, apart from the trial on 58050) would have been less of a hindrance for passenger work... though there wasn't much call for new passenger locos in the 1980s of course.
apart from their 80mph max speed. Most lines seem to be timed for much higher max speed passenger trains nowadays.
According to that list, active work is being undertaken. Don’t know what that means exactly though?
That sounds promising, hopefully.
Which list are you looking at?
Quite the productive time for my original fugly pen indeed.
Though if you note the post I was quoting (from a member who is usually well informed) they were likely capable of more... particularly on lighter-loaded passenger workings. Back in the 1990s they'd have been better than 31s which could barely pull the skin off a rice pudding!
This one:
58048 is being restored at the Battlefield line by the same company that did 58023
It’s just an active designation, that’s all.
It's still a surprise that there is any comparison with a 47: 47s had 17.1 kW / Tonne weight, 58s just 13.7! 31s were 11.0 (if you use wikipedia data)
Seems a peculiarly high figure for the class 47: 2080hp/1550kW at the rail and a weight somewhere between 120.5 and 125 tonnes for a late eighties or early nineties condition class 47/4 gives a figure of around 12.7 kW / Tonne weight.
