Class 67 Locomotive Questions.

[Yorkshire09876]

I’m surprised it isn’t 002 as that’s also junk (never been the same after Special Delivery decided to use a HAA as a skateboard in Bristol). Then again 003 has been non ETS for a considerable number of years, so it always had its cards marked.

002 has been at Wabtec for ages as the pilot loco for ERTMS fitment to the class - presumably selected as it worked but was one they didn't mind losing for ages while the work and testing was done.

003 has been used on Mk4 set diversions not that many years ago, so the ETS must have been working then. Wasn't it something to do with ETS not working when it was pushing a push-pull set or something like that? I remember it being reported as something obscure.

Another one which has had a lot of problems over the years is 010, but presumably that's been behaving in recent years as it was selected as one of those for the TfW modifications.

 

[sprinterguy]

Deleted

 

[D365]

002 has been at Wabtec for ages as the pilot loco for ERTMS fitment to the class - presumably selected as it worked but was one they didn't mind losing for ages while the work and testing was done.

The FOCs don’t mind providing serviceable locomotives. Network Rail is shelling out a fair amount to ’rent’ the first in class vehicles from the FOCs, rather than directly leasing from a ROSCO.

 

[class442]

I saw this on LinkedIn this morning, 67006 has had a run out at 125mph as part of ETCS development.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/clas...ting-etcs-125mph-year-skates-cmgr-mcmi-hgpte/

I was under the belief that DB's 67s have not been maintained to a 125mph spec/run at 125mph for ages, is this correct?

 

[31160]

I think 003 was the first to work a passenger train (with 005) when a res 47 burst working for XC

 

[craigybagel]

I was under the belief that DB's 67s have not been maintained to a 125mph spec/run at 125mph for ages, is this correct?

They're still labelled for 125mph in the cab. I suspect it's more they've never had an opportunity to run at those kinds of speeds for ages. They do hit 110mph on a daily basis with TfW however. The ride and noise at that speed is rather lively as it is, I'd hate to think what it's like at 125.

 

[JKF]

67003 is awaiting road transport from Toton TMD, for scrapping

Are the cabyard guys on the case? Where is it going for scrap?

 

[ExRes]

67003 is awaiting road transport from Toton TMD, for scrapping

Reported on WNXX this evening that 67003 has been loaded onto road transport and removed from Toton today, destination thought to be EMR Kingsbury, another one for scrap that I drove from brand new, first the 325s and now the skips are off to the skip

 

[Milo T.K]

67003 has now been chopped with pictures surfacing on Facebook and possibly other places

 

[Yorkshire09876]

67003 has now been chopped with pictures surfacing on Facebook and possibly other places

Got any links? I don't have a Facebook account so if it requires a login then I won't be able to see them anyway. Thanks.

 

[Milo T.K]

This isn't my image but nonetheless


Image showing 67003 during scrapping

 

[james60059]

This isn't my image but nonetheless


Image showing 67003 during scrapping

Jeez they didn't mess about

 

[GM078]

There's something quite weird about seeing what to my mind is a 'modern' loco going for scrap (crash damaged ones excepted). But I suppose 25 years is longer than the Deltics were in service...

 

[Yorkshire09876]

There's something quite weird about seeing what to my mind is a 'modern' loco going for scrap (crash damaged ones excepted). But I suppose 25 years is longer than the Deltics were in service...

It's the first post-privatisation loco to be scrapped as life expired, I believe - there have been a couple of 66s but that was a result of accidents (Great Heck, where the loco was significantly damaged, and the GBRF one which ended up stuck on a bank above a loch and could only be retrieved in pieces).

 

[D365]

It's the first post-privatisation loco to be scrapped as life expired, I believe - there have been a couple of 66s but that was a result of accidents (Great Heck, where the loco was significantly damaged, and the GBRF one which ended up stuck on a bank above a loch and could only be retrieved in pieces).

Two or three Class 57s have been scrapped.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

Two or three Class 57s have been scrapped.

One - 57004.

I wouldn't count these as post-BR locos: they were existing locos which were fitted with a different type of engine. If you were going to include them then all then HST power cars scrapped would also count as they too were mostly fitted with different engines post-BR, although they didn't get a new class number.

 

[GM078]

One - 57004.

I wouldn't count these as post-BR locos: they were existing locos which were fitted with a different type of engine. If you were going to include them then all then HST power cars scrapped would also count as they too were mostly fitted with different engines post-BR, although they didn't get a new class number.

That's an excellent point I never considered before... does anyone count the MTU-fitted power cars as a different class to what they were before?

 

[norbitonflyer]

That's an excellent point I never considered before... does anyone count the MTU-fitted power cars as a different class to what they were before?

Back in BR days they probably would have been - a different engine meamt a different class - see classes 08/10, 42/43, although there were exceptions - the Rolls Royce- engined Claytons were classified 17, the same as the Paxman ones. Even quite minor differences led to a different class number (see eg classes 08 and 09, 24 and 25, or 44 and 45). Many classes that were re-engined were reclassified (see classes 30/31 or 48/47, as well as the more recent 47/57 or 56/69 conversions).

But there was never any cosnistency - many class 37s got new engines, but not new class numbers.

 

[Trainman40083]

It's the first post-privatisation loco to be scrapped as life expired, I believe - there have been a couple of 66s but that was a result of accidents (Great Heck, where the loco was significantly damaged, and the GBRF one which ended up stuck on a bank above a loch and could only be retrieved in pieces).

66048, 66521 and 66734 were scrapped, although the bent body shell of 66048 remains at Longport.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

66048, 66521 and 66734 were scrapped, although the bent body shell of 66048 remains at Longport.

66048 hasn't been scrapped - it was heavily stripped then sold to EMD. Yes, it's a wreck but the basic chassis and bodyshell are still intact, so it still exists.

66521 was the Great Heck loco - it was heavily stripped by Freightliner, and the remains sent to Booths. 66734 was dismantled to get it out (and they had to cut the bodyshell up). Its cabs were reused by GBRF for training simulators, and the engine was apparently rebuilt and reused in 66779.

 

[Richard Scott]

Back in BR days they probably would have been - a different engine meamt a different class - see classes 08/10, 42/43, although there were exceptions - the Rolls Royce- engined Claytons were classified 17, the same as the Paxman ones. Even quite minor differences led to a different class number (see eg classes 08 and 09, 24 and 25, or 44 and 45). Many classes that were re-engined were reclassified (see classes 30/31 or 48/47, as well as the more recent 47/57 or 56/69 conversions).

But there was never any cosnistency - many class 37s got new engines, but not new class numbers.

New engines rarely meant new numbers (exceptions being 21s to 39s and 30s to 31s), usually seemed to be other equipment replaced too so a 57 has generator replaced with an alternator and other modifications as well as a different engine.
Lots of those classes listed had significant other variations other than the engine 42s and 43s were significantly different. Some HST power cars were rreenginedunder BR 43167-43170 received Mirrlees engines in late 80s and weren't renumbered let alone reclassified.
Think we're drifting a bit here though!!!

 

[ExRes]

67019 & 67030 are both reported on WNXX to have been shunted to the rear of the shed a couple of days ago after some component recovery, by the look of them they could well be meeting up with 67003 in the not too distant future

 

[fgwrich]

67019 & 67030 are both reported on WNXX to have been shunted to the rear of the shed a couple of days ago after some component recovery, by the look of them they could well be meeting up with 67003 in the not too distant future

Given how 030 was looking a few months ago, I would say it’s fairly likely. (Around 07:33in the below video).

 

[Doomotron]

This isn't my image but nonetheless


Image showing 67003 during scrapping

It's sad to see such a young loco being scrapped. If only they had been more useful when they were new!

 

[JKF]

Wonder if the cabyard place will try and get something ‘modern’ for their collection?

 

[D365]

It's sad to see such a young loco being scrapped. If only they had been more useful when they were new!

If only EMD had been able to acquire a licence for the 125mph Co-Co bogie (Class 89) from Brush… what could have been.

 

[43096]

If only EMD had been able to acquire a licence for the 125mph Co-Co bogie (Class 89) from Brush… what could have been.

Or EWS had thought if 125mph were even likely. A 100mph 67 would have been much more useful.

 

[Trainman40083]

It's sad to see such a young loco being scrapped. If only they had been more useful when they were new!

They were introduced to support the Royal Mail contract. Royal Mail decided to move most of their operations to road/air, which saw the need for many Class 67s reduce. Certainly on Cross Country services through Derby.

 

[ic31420]

If only EMD had been able to acquire a licence for the 125mph Co-Co bogie (Class 89) from Brush… what could have been.

I think they could... they didn't want to pay the price.

I think that saving has cost more than it saved many times over.

I doubt the 67s have ever paid for themselves and now are worth more as parts and scrap.

Or EWS had thought if 125mph were even likely. A 100mph 67 would have been much more useful.

Agreed... But then would we have then been better with a 100mph ETH 66 variant.


Remember the briefly proposed single ended 67 to run with Virmin Crosscountry with some new coaches.
The idea was quickly dropped in favour of more voyagers or keeping some HSTs IIRC.

 

[43096]

Remember the briefly proposed single ended 67 to run with Virmin Crosscountry with some new coaches. The idea was quickly dropped in favour of more voyagers or keeping some HSTs

The plan was 67+new stock rather than the 220s. It was changed to the 220s that we know and detest.