randyrippley
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Feb 2016
- Messages
- 5,134
something to think about is that those Mirrlees engines probably have more value if sold for re-use than the entire locomotive's book value
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Future of the Class 60 locos at Toton?
- Thread starter E_Reeves
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I will take that with a pinch of salt. Is there any articles of this? I would love to read what the results are for the maximum speed that they did as they would not exceed 60mph without a tuneup as a minimum. But seriously though, the speed limiter would have to be disabled to make the Class 60 capable of exceeding 60mph on the mainline and also tuning and some extra gears would have to be added to make a higher speed viable without smoking the traction motors. I tried to run a 12 volt model train on a 22 volt DC supply and it went "pop"
. So the same thing would most likely happen with overloaded traction motors. I am not being mean but due to so many foamers and their "wishlists" on the internet. I would need to read some solid evidence of this matter to be convinced 
. Don't take it personal mate.
Last edited:
Harbornite
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 May 2016
- Messages
- 3,634
Here we go again .......
Is my roof leaking? Ah it's just froth from the spotters. Fetch a bucket!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
A Class 60 doing 100mph!
I am staying well clear of the Class 442 debate because there is enough froth floating about on here as it is mate.
Don't get me wrong though, the Class 442's were good in their day and as much as I like them. The future for the 442's is either preservation at heritage railway sites like the MNR, NNR, NVR, ELR, SVR, GCR etc and perhaps Booth's for the really rough units that would cost too much to preserve. As times have changed and the travelling public want the latest trains. We are just rail enthusiasts
However most of the Class 60's that are stored at Toton have a lot more reuse value. I did read a while ago that a Class 37 that was stored over 10 years was reinstated back into traffic (It could have been 37501? But honestly speaking I cannot remember its fleetnumber for the life of me). But that shows that its not necessary the end of the road for the Class 60's as that has been proved with the "Super Tug" program that started in 2011 under DB Schenker that would have never happened under EWS. The downside for the Class 60's was that every single one went to EWS as had Freightliner inherited some of them and perhaps GBRF at the end of the 1990's when BR was totally privatised. I reckon that ones under Freightliner would have been used and ugly Class 70's would have not been required for heavy haul. Same with GBRF as the Class 60's are very good locomotives and they had very advanced CPU's that were ahead of their time in the 1980s/1990s when they first entered service under BR
You would be forgiven that I am speaking here from an enthusiast point of view and yes I will admit that the Class 60 is my favourite freight locomotive that is on the mainline. But for an FTOC that wants a powerful locomotive that is cheaper than buying a new locomotive. The obsolete Class 60's that DBC don't need/require is a good choice as demonstrated by Colas and I hope that Freightliner and GB Railfreight/Europorte will consider buying some. As then, all those 142/143/144 Pacers when displaced by proper trains can take the place of those stored Class 60's!.
Plenty of heritage railway acronyms, you forget my favourite one where these units should reside: EMR!
On a serious note, I agree with all this as colas proved there is a future for some members of the class. I think it's best to judge each loco by its individual merits because some are worse than others, but some could potentially be reused if there is a pickup in demand for such machines.
richieb1971
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 1,981
From what i've been reading over the past couple of years on here on the UK rail forum is that the specification of the class 60 is exactly why 66% of the class are sitting at Toton.
Whilst they have their merits, they are specialist in heavy haulage which we have a limited amount of. The top speed is 60mph which is too slow for other traffic and they have no heating for passenger traffic of which there is next to no carriages for anyway.
Which begs the question, what work existed in 1989 that warranted a 100 loco build in the first place and where did that work go? (if existed).
I do like the fact that when you often see a 60 it has a huge rake of wagons behind it. Which is more than can be said for all the other British diesel traction on the network.
Whilst they have their merits, they are specialist in heavy haulage which we have a limited amount of. The top speed is 60mph which is too slow for other traffic and they have no heating for passenger traffic of which there is next to no carriages for anyway.
Which begs the question, what work existed in 1989 that warranted a 100 loco build in the first place and where did that work go? (if existed).
I do like the fact that when you often see a 60 it has a huge rake of wagons behind it. Which is more than can be said for all the other British diesel traction on the network.
SpacePhoenix
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 5,492
Will any get used for the construction of HS2 or will that work be exclusively class 66s?
Ash Bridge
Established Member
For starters I think there was still a fair quantity of coal and steel traffic around at that time, also don't forget that the class 58s which ofcourse were BRs earlier purpose designed heavy hauler locomotive were not exactly living up to their promised expectations, and as well as the class 60 BR also had plans for a class 65 higher powered version (4000hp) with a higher max speed making it suitable for Freightliner/intermodal type traffic, looming privatisation at the time probably killed this one though.
richieb1971
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 1,981
If the class 65 were built, the class 60's would all have gone by now.
But to me it does seem like 100 was overkill on the order. Especially since in that era you still had 56's and 58's that were working at that time. To have a further order of 65's makes me wonder why they didn't start with the class 65 specification to begin with.
In contrast, the 59 fleet that the 60 was competing with only built a handful (not sure how many). The 59 class has an impeccable record over the years and some of them look newer than their 66 cousins.
Ash Bridge
Established Member
Well my point was that the 56 & 58 fleets did not fully live up to expectations and this was the reason that the original 59s came about in the first place as Foster Yeoman (an important customer of BR) were becoming increasingly unhappy with the poor performance of the class 56s BR was using on their aggregate trains by the 1980s, there were more than a few raised eyebrows when the initial privately owned fleet was ordered back then.
When the superb performance of these hand built loco's was realised when put to service on FY trains, BR knew they needed something far superior to 56/58s in terms of haulage capacity and reliability for general heavy haul work and because at the time it would have been too controversial to purchase a fleet of further 59s for a state owned operator they obviously looked to a traditional UK builder to supply their needs, hence the class 60 was born.
Finally the 66s are mass produced unlike the 59s and it certainly shows in the way they are finished, a 60 looks like Rolls Royce in comparison when you inspect them close up.
ac6000cw
Established Member
As far as I remember from the time, the coal sector of BR really wanted to buy more 59s (and it was said that the tender spec was written around the class 59 performance). GEC did a deal with EMD to licence build the 59s in the UK if they got the order.
As required under EU rules (since BR was a state-owned utility), the order went out to open tender, and the whole-life cost of the class 60 design was reckoned to be better than the 59 - I think largely due to the better fuel economy of the Mirlees diesel engine - so Brush got the contract.
So you could say the Mirlees engine both won the contract and later became the Achilles Heel of the fleet due to reliability problems...
As required under EU rules (since BR was a state-owned utility), the order went out to open tender, and the whole-life cost of the class 60 design was reckoned to be better than the 59 - I think largely due to the better fuel economy of the Mirlees diesel engine - so Brush got the contract.
So you could say the Mirlees engine both won the contract and later became the Achilles Heel of the fleet due to reliability problems...
Last edited:
SpacePhoenix
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 5,492
Would the Mirlees engine design fall a long way foul of current emissions regs?
Ash Bridge
Established Member
Interesting, thanks for that, after the super sixty refurbishments is the Mirrlees power unit still regarded as the weak link in the design or have modifications been made to improve its performance?
ac6000cw
Established Member
I'm not an expert on that (just an ordinary enthusiast), but parts of the engine had to be redesigned early in their life to fix some of the problems - even though it had been bench tested using BR's 'engine breaker' test program (developed after the HST power car Valenta engine problems).
The perfect combination would probably have been a traction-proven EMD engine allied to the (more advanced than EMD) Brush traction control system. EWS looked at re-engining the 60s with EMD diesel power, but presumably the financial numbers didn't work out.
richieb1971
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 1,981
I read the engine was the strongest point. That the weak link was the complex computer circuits that controlled the engine were the problem and kept failing.
Watch this at 05:30 seconds in. (or watch it all).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AETc2Hn-Kk
Watch this at 05:30 seconds in. (or watch it all).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AETc2Hn-Kk
RichmondCommu
Established Member
Whereas Crewe is a depot with a scrapyard hidden inside it!
Which Crewe depot are you referring to?
This is probably just an afterthought. Does the core of the problems with the Class 60's lie with the Mirrlees units? Or are the CPU's the cause of the breakdowns/failures of these locomotives? If its the former and from my understanding of the Class 60's. The whole Class 60 is built like an aircraft using a monocoque (spelling?) frame rather than chassis/bodyshell like on the Class 59/66. So if the Mirrlees units are getting past it to put it nicely. Perhaps something similar like a Caterpillar V12 like those on the Class 68's or an MTU V4000 like those used on the HST's would be compact enough to fit. However if the problem is mainly down to the CPU hardware. Perhaps a more modern reliable CPU system could be implemented and replace the older CPU.
The only Class 60's I am aware of that has had major PU failures is 60006 and 60081 (thrown a rod), 60008 (turbocharger explosion), 60064, 60070 and 60098 (unknown failures) which makes six of them on the SU (stored non-servicable/major work needed repairs) list as a minimum.
That aside though. I think once the core of the problem is solved. Perhaps DB Schenker could lease a few Class 60's to other FTOC companies like DB Railfreight/Europorte, Freightliner and Direct Rail Services if the latter wish to enter the heavy haul market. However the problem is that the freight by rail although it is growing steadily. Road transport and the aftermath of Baldylocks Beeching closing off many of the lines back in the 1960's/1970's makes the freight by rail market more difficult. So more rail freight can be a viable option if more lines are built and/or reopened to traffic.
The only Class 60's I am aware of that has had major PU failures is 60006 and 60081 (thrown a rod), 60008 (turbocharger explosion), 60064, 60070 and 60098 (unknown failures) which makes six of them on the SU (stored non-servicable/major work needed repairs) list as a minimum.
That aside though. I think once the core of the problem is solved. Perhaps DB Schenker could lease a few Class 60's to other FTOC companies like DB Railfreight/Europorte, Freightliner and Direct Rail Services if the latter wish to enter the heavy haul market
. However the problem is that the freight by rail although it is growing steadily. Road transport and the aftermath of Baldylocks Beeching closing off many of the lines back in the 1960's/1970's makes the freight by rail market more difficult. So more rail freight can be a viable option if more lines are built and/or reopened to traffic.
Philip Phlopp
Established Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2015
- Messages
- 3,004
This is probably just an afterthought. Does the core of the problems with the Class 60's lie with the Mirrlees units? Or are the CPU's the cause of the breakdowns/failures of these locomotives? If its the former and from my understanding of the Class 60's. The whole Class 60 is built like an aircraft using a monocoque (spelling?) frame rather than chassis/bodyshell like on the Class 59/66. So if the Mirrlees units are getting past it to put it nicely. Perhaps something similar like a Caterpillar V12 like those on the Class 68's or an MTU V4000 like those used on the HST's would be compact enough to fit. However if the problem is mainly down to the CPU hardware. Perhaps a more modern reliable CPU system could be implemented and replace the older CPU.
The only Class 60's I am aware of that has had major PU failures is 60006 and 60081 (thrown a rod), 60008 (turbocharger explosion), 60064, 60070 and 60098 (unknown failures) which makes six of them on the SU (stored non-servicable/major work needed repairs) list as a minimum.
That aside though. I think once the core of the problem is solved. Perhaps DB Schenker could lease a few Class 60's to other FTOC companies like DB Railfreight/Europorte, Freightliner and Direct Rail Services if the latter wish to enter the heavy haul market
There's all manner of problems with the Class 60 locomotives, the engine is a known issue but with some modifications, it can be relatively reliable, though you'll never match the reliability that a simple two stroke diesel is capable of.
Re-engineering was considered previously and ruled out on grounds of cost, today it's likely to be even more complicated thanks to the emissions legislation - expect bodyshell modifications (difficult with a monocoque) to allow a Euro IV compliant engine to fit into the existing bodyshell.
It's not just the engine, you would want to replace the slightly fragile DC traction motors with much more reliable, lower maintenance AC motors, but that's bogie modifications too. The engine could dictate a new traction alternator too.
Which then leads to a whole load of new control equipment to manage the new motors, alternator and engine.
Then you've got to strip the bodyshell down, effect corrosion repairs, strip bogies, make modifications. It starts getting stupidly expensive and before you know where you are, you've spent the same as it would cost for a new build locomotive from Stadler/Vossloh or GE.
That's why the Class 57 program didn't really go all that far, and it used scrap alternators from Class 56s initially, refurbished ex US Navy engines and kept the same motors etc. It's just not cost effective.
SpacePhoenix
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 5,492
Are the 60s the first class of loco or unit to have had some sort of electronics/computer managing aspects of the engine in the UK?
Ash Bridge
Established Member
The class 50s as built were full of electronics, and apparently very troublesome.
Last edited:
RichmondCommu
Established Member
Were most of those taken out during the refurbishment at Doncaster?
Ash Bridge
Established Member
I'm no expert, but I think you are correct, wasn't this after they were all transferred to the Western Region? They also lost their 'Hoover' sound after this if I remember correct.
Last edited:
RichmondCommu
Established Member
From memory the class 50's left the London Midland region when the electrification of the WCML was complete in the mid 1970's (1974?) but I don't recall them going through Doncaster until the early 1980's when they received their 'large logo' livery.
randyrippley
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Feb 2016
- Messages
- 5,134
What I've often wondered about the class 60 is, who was the brave person who chose a Mirrlees engine design when the Ruston RK270 series were on offer. Given the problems of the class 30s, and the Blackstone equipped batch of 08 shunters, the risks should have been glaringly obvious
Philip Phlopp
Established Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2015
- Messages
- 3,004
The Mirrlees was the most economical engine, and was backed up by Brush (Hawker Siddeley owned both Mirrlees Blackstone and Brush at the time). The Ruston engine came from GEC-Alsthom who were competing with Brush, and wasn't as good an option in financial and economic terms.
The MB275 is a good engine, not entirely suited to rail traction, but they run incredibly reliably with Caledonian MacBrayne on their ferry fleet (MV Isle of Mull amongst others are so fitted).
There are currently 24 Class 60s in the 'active' pool allocations - ten with Colas and fourteen with DBC. The remaining 76 Class 60s in store are all DBC locomotives. I suppose that isn't too bad considering the economic climate and the surplus of 66s at present.
The decision to build the Class 60 as it is was ultimately down to politics. It was far too unpalatable to build the common sense decision and gone with the proven GEC / General Motors Electro Motive option. They offered a state-of-the-art Class 59, to have been built in the UK (at Crewe?). Had it been selected, maybe EWS wouldn't have felt the need to have leased 250 Class 66s and all of the enlarged fleet of 59s would have remained in revenue earning service. Hindsight is so wonderful .....
The decision to build the Class 60 as it is was ultimately down to politics. It was far too unpalatable to build the common sense decision and gone with the proven GEC / General Motors Electro Motive option. They offered a state-of-the-art Class 59, to have been built in the UK (at Crewe?). Had it been selected, maybe EWS wouldn't have felt the need to have leased 250 Class 66s and all of the enlarged fleet of 59s would have remained in revenue earning service. Hindsight is so wonderful .....
Ash Bridge
Established Member
There are currently 24 Class 60s in the 'active' pool allocations - ten with Colas and fourteen with DBC. The remaining 76 Class 60s in store are all DBC locomotives. I suppose that isn't too bad considering the economic climate and the surplus of 66s at present.
The decision to build the Class 60 as it is was ultimately down to politics. It was far too unpalatable to build the common sense decision and gone with the proven GEC / General Motors Electro Motive option. They offered a state-of-the-art Class 59, to have been built in the UK (at Crewe?). Had it been selected, maybe EWS wouldn't have felt the need to have leased 250 Class 66s and all of the enlarged fleet of 59s would have remained in revenue earning service. Hindsight is so wonderful .....
I can see your point, but would not two variants of the 59 be required (60mph & 75mph versions) for them to be suitable for all traffic types? As has already been mentioned on previous threads the class 60 is still quite superior to a 59 in haulage terms especially when operating in poor railhead conditions due to its far superior SEPEX control system, then there is the question of driver comfort, as I believe the 60 cab is a much nicer place to be than that of a 59/66.
Last edited:
DarloRich
Veteran Member
Very good read that
On the talk of Class 60 with passenger trains, if the Class 60's were ever modified to work on passenger trains. They would firstly need to have a HEP output to power the carriages or a generator coach (converted Mk3 DVT with generator fitted for HEP/ETH?) in the consist as a minimum. Also secondly the locomotives would need a serious rework with uprated traction motors to deliver a top speed of about 80/90mph to comply for mainline operations.
Depending on the rolling stock used. The Class 60's would fit perfectly with a rake of Mk3's and a Mk3 DVT as I run one of my Hornby Class 60's with a Mk3 rake and DVT and it looks somewhat uniform!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U4T85H4G-k
I am not sure it is quite that simple.................
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Coal, steel, Aluminum, POL, ores, stone - proper heavy duty industrial supply. As for passenger use: :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The tender for the class 60 was issued in the late 80's when we still had coal mines and steel works a plenty. They were designed to replace large numbers of older classes and double headed workings on all kinds of bulk freight services
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Perhaps DB Schenker could lease a few Class 60's to other FTOC companies like DB Railfreight/Europorte, Freightliner and Direct Rail Services if the latter wish to enter the heavy haul market
Why would they give the competition a leg up? The real world and all that!
Last edited:
That aside though. I think once the core of the problem is solved. Perhaps DB Schenker could lease a few Class 60's to other FTOC companies like DB Railfreight/Europorte, Freightliner and Direct Rail Services if the latter wish to enter the heavy haul market
Why should DBC do that? I was surprised when they performed the Super 60 refurbs on the locos that Colas were allowed to purchase, but DBC must have had their reasons (notably financial). I daresay they charged a healthy premium to Colas for that work.
Again, we can thank politics for how Wisconsin Central acquired their fleet of locos. Unlike passenger locos that generally passed into the hands of the ROSCOs at the time of privatisation, EWS hoovered up the existing loco fleet along with the businesses they purchased. This has now manifested itself as a fleet of 58s in Spain with no likelihood of return, dozens of 60s rotting at Toton and even 90s parked up with no work, all under the auspices of one FOC. If only the 58s, 60s, 90s and 92s had passed to the ROSCOs ..... again, fantasy thoughts with the benefit of hindsight!
DarloRich
Veteran Member
Many of them would still be parked up - If there is no work there is no work. Many of those classes were built to haul coal trains. We have few coal train these days.
richieb1971
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 1,981
Since those 60's have been left to rot we have had -
Lots of 57's, 68's, 88's and 70's ordered. People are rebuilding 56's.. and lets not forget that until recently 66's were arriving on our shores.
at least some of those locos are pulling 45mph, 50mph and 60mph trains.
Under a differing political system many more of the 60's could be running those trains. It is understood about the coal though, that was their primary function.
Communist?
- Status