GBRF confirms conversion of Class 56s to Class 69s

[FrodshamJnct]

My sincere apologies for posting - I was completely taken in!

 

[Ashley Hill]

My sincere apologies for posting - I was completely taken in!

So was I but it proved my point that Kestrel livery will look goid on one.

 

[Trainman40083]

I guess the discussion re 69014 starts again on Thursday, when Arlington post the image

 

[Bow Fell]

I think we need one in Dutch / Civil Engineers livery, worn by 56031/36/46/47/48/49!

 

[Loadhaul60059]

I'd like to see one in the Loadhaul livery personally!

 

[Trainman40083]

I'd like to see one in the Loadhaul livery personally!

Do DB have the rights to it?

 

[Class15]

Do DB have the rights to it?

This has been discussed upthread, although of course I can’t request you to have read the entire thread!

The consensus was that any rights DB may have had would have long since expired.

 

[Spaceship323]

Do DB have the rights to it?

I suppose if GBRf ask nicely DB would let them use it?

 

[Trainman40083]

I suppose if GBRf ask nicely DB would let them use it?

If that was the case, I'd want Mainline blue too.

 

[43096]

If that was the case, I'd want Mainline blue too.

58023 already has it!

 

[USRailFan]

as per your googling, they’re not an operator, but they were the parent company of Brush Traction and Brush Electrical Machines when the Class 56s were being constructed.

I think the point was that Kestrel was also the name of the Hawker Siddeley prototype airplane that eventually became the Harrier

 

[Yorkshire09876]

If that was the case, I'd want Mainline blue too.

Don't think any 56s ever carried that, did they?

 

[43096]

Don't think any 56s ever carried that, did they?

No, because Class 56s were split between Transrail and Loadhaul. Mainline inherited the entire Class 58 fleet instead.

 

[wickham]

All these livery suggestions for Class 69s but I wonder if anyone at GBRf reads this !! I suspect that they will have their own ideas.

 

[SolomonSouth]

I must say, I’m quite surprised they converted 40 year old locomotives instead of buying new locomotives. Surely new locomotives would be more reliable, quicker and better overall?

 

[D365]

I must say, I’m quite surprised they converted 40 year old locomotives instead of buying new locomotives. Surely new locomotives would be more reliable, quicker and better overall?

GBRf has new locomotives on order (Class 99 - discussion here) but this is obviously several years after the Class 69s first entered traffic.

 

[m79900]

I must say, I’m quite surprised they converted 40 year old locomotives instead of buying new locomotives. Surely new locomotives would be more reliable, quicker and better overall?

But the amount of publicity that's been made out of just 16 locos, wondering what heritage liveries they'll carry, that they're built in the UK, and that they look like something older makes it worth it. I for one think its been a brilliant project.

 

[Sun Chariot]

I must say, I’m quite surprised they converted 40 year old locomotives instead of buying new locomotives. Surely new locomotives would be more reliable, quicker and better overall?

"Order > design > construction > testing > delivery" is a longer lead-time, than that for the scope of work done to the 69s.

New builds are likely to need overseas suppliers, who will be already be committing construction orders for other railways across other nations.

Even if the 69s are stop-gap, they have met GBRf's "need" far more quickly, than for a complete new build

 

[SolomonSouth]

"Order > design > construction > testing >'delivery" is a longer lead-time, than that for the scope of work done to the 69s.

New builds are likely to need overseas suppliers, who will be already be committing construction orders for other railways across other nations.

Even if the 69s are stop-gap, they have met GBRf's "need" far more quickly, than for a complete new build

That makes more sense, thank you.

 

[hwl]

"Order > design > construction > testing >'delivery" is a longer lead-time, than that for the scope of work done to the 69s.

New builds are likely to need overseas suppliers, who will be already be committing construction orders for other railways across other nations.

Even if the 69s are stop-gap, they have met GBRf's "need" far more quickly, than for a complete new build

Also with several 69s modified for MU moves - which would add more complexity, time and cost for a new build design. The MU moves also don't need that much power.

 

[SolomonSouth]

The one thing I do wonder about with the 69s is the old DC motors they still have from the 56s. These are obsolete, and have been for some time, so wouldn’t spare parts be getting rather thin on the ground?

 

[hwl]

The one thing I do wonder about with the 69s is the old DC motors they still have from the 56s. These are obsolete, and have been for some time, so wouldn’t spare parts be getting rather thin on the ground?

Luckily there is a very useful firm in Dublin called Associated Rewinds that sends them back better than when they were new...

Associated Rewinds

Associated Rewinds are the largest Independent Specialists in the Repair, Re-winding and Re-Manufacture of Traction Motors for Trains, Trams and Metro Systems. Operating since 1986, our modern facilities in Dublin, Ireland.

associatedrewinds.com

 

[SolomonSouth]

Luckily there is a very useful firm in Dublin called Associated Rewinds that sends them back better than when they were new...

Associated Rewinds

Associated Rewinds are the largest Independent Specialists in the Repair, Re-winding and Re-Manufacture of Traction Motors for Trains, Trams and Metro Systems. Operating since 1986, our modern facilities in Dublin, Ireland.

associatedrewinds.com

Didn’t know about that. Thanks for the link.

 

[Nym]

The one thing I do wonder about with the 69s is the old DC motors they still have from the 56s. These are obsolete, and have been for some time, so wouldn’t spare parts be getting rather thin on the ground?

Compared with the old DC motors of the 66s…?

 

[SolomonSouth]

Compared with the old DC motors of the 66s…?

Yes, hence why I wondered if some 66 would be scrapped and cannibalized for spares when 99s came. Indeed why were 66s built with DC motors when AC motors existed and were well into production in the late 90s/early 00s?

 

[BRX]

I must say, I’m quite surprised they converted 40 year old locomotives instead of buying new locomotives. Surely new locomotives would be more reliable, quicker and better overall?

As I understand it, it was mainly about exploiting a loophole to avoid having to buy new locos that meet modern emissions standards. Previous discussions suggested that such locos would be expensive due to fitting all the necessary equipment within UK loading gauge. Presumably though, the 93s and 99s demonstrate this is not impossible given that they have managed to fit in a diesel engine as well as all the electrical stuff.

 

[Cowley]

There’s a new thread below to talk about further ideas:

Could a brand new diesel-electric locomotive be procured for GB in 2025?

That makes more sense, thank you. "Order > design > construction > testing > delivery" is a longer lead-time, than that for the scope of work done to the 69s. New builds are likely to need overseas suppliers, who will be already be committing construction orders for other railways across...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Ciderking]

69014 Just visible outside the works this morning and it really is in Kestrel livery.

 

[Sun Chariot]

69014 Just visible outside the works this morning and it really is in Kestrel livery.

@Ashley Hill have you been doing the celebration dance yet?

 

[Ashley Hill]

@Ashley Hill have you been doing the celebration dance yet?

I dance about as well as a chair with a broken leg