What's the most powerful Locomotive on UK Rails?

CosherB said:

Really?

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

Click to expand...

Yes, it was commonly reported during the time of their operation that they were p*** weak compared to, say, the earlier class 56. Wheelslip certainly was an issue: There was at least one Nottinghamshire colliery (Harworth? Bassetlaw? I can't remember now) where 58 were limited to 28 HAA hoppers due to their tendency to slip on the gradients leaving the colliery.

Certainly, they could never hold a candle to the sure footed capabilities of the class 60s that followed them.

sprinterguy said:

Yes, it was commonly reported during the time of their operation that they were p*** weak compared to, say, the earlier class 56. Wheelslip certainly was an issue: There was at least one Nottinghamshire colliery (Harworth? Bassetlaw? I can't remember now) where 58 were limited to 28 HAA hoppers due to their tendency to slip on the gradients leaving the colliery.

Certainly, they could never hold a candle to the sure footed capabilities of the class 60s that followed them.

Click to expand...

Was 58050 the one they used as a test bed for the Sepex wheelslip control technology that was fitted as standard in the class 60 fleet? If so I wonder how that performed in comparison to the rest of the fleet?

Is this limited to current locos?
Or can Steam be considered.
I will kick off with the GER Decapod 0 - 10 -0
TE 38788lbs
Weight 80 tons
Axle load 16.75tons

What about the co-co class 89?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ploughman said:

Is this limited to current locos?
Or can Steam be considered.
I will kick off with the GER Decapod 0 - 10 -0
TE 38788lbs
Weight 80 tons
Axle load 16.75tons

Click to expand...

I'll raise you

Beyer-Garrat used on Worsborough bank

Configuration 2-8-0+0-8-2
UIC classification 1'D(D1')h6
Gauge 4 ft 8 1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) standard gauge
Leading wheel
diameter 2 ft 8 in (0.813 m)
Driver diameter 4 ft 8 in (1.422 m)
Length 87 ft 3 in (26.59 m)
Locomotive weight 178 long tons (181 t; 199 short tons)
Fuel type Coal
Fuel capacity 7 long tons (7.1 t; 7.8 short tons)
Water capacity 5,000 imp gal (23,000 l; 6,000 US gal)
Boiler pressure 180 lb/sq in (13 kg/cm2; 1,200 kPa)
Firegrate area 56.5 sq ft (5.25 m2)
Cylinders 2 x 3 cylinder engines
Cylinder size 18 1⁄2 in × 26 in (470 mm × 660 mm)
Performance figures
Tractive effort 72,940 lbf (324,500 N)

A bit of a beast?

Ash Bridge said:

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?

Click to expand...

Yes the Class 59's were found wanting and some occasions, could not pull a skin off a rice pudding!! Most of the Arpley Drivers, did not like them and just wanted the Class 60's back on them which eventually happened. I agree, there will be other factors involved for the Class 60's to have the advantage on those trains but regardless, it was a significant advantage.

CosherB said:

Really?

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

Click to expand...

The first line on that link is wrong

I remember in channel 4's equinox 'Trouble On The Line' they looked at the recent introduction of the class 91 and stated it could 'reach 125mph at full power in just under two and a half minutes!'