-
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!
GBRF confirms conversion of Class 56s to Class 69s
- Thread starter 507 001
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Entertexthere
Member
Hopefully the ride quality for the drivers will be good 
there's the door, and out i go!
there's the door, and out i go!
Again, let's drop the jokes and in particular perhaps a reminder to all that we require content to be family friendly. The line is getting rather blurred currently.
Thanks,
ainsworth74
Thanks,
ainsworth74
Entertexthere
Member
are there any other confirmed modifications other than a EMD 170 and potentially and class 66 silencer?
Tracked
Established Member
Noticed 56098 lurking outside Roberts Road this afternoon, wondered if this was coincidence or if this was related to this project?
Suraggu
Member
EMD traction control systems etc.
Spirit555
Member
- Joined
- 8 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 821
56098 gone for tyre turning.
According to WNXX 69001 - 69010 have been confirmed/
HTH
Mark
According to WNXX 69001 - 69010 have been confirmed/
HTH
Mark
Tracked
Established Member
nedchester
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 May 2008
- Messages
- 2,093
Suspect that's 47+50007/31+Prototype HST + 31163...…..
Photohunter71
Member
Are these 69's going to be working UK wide or located to a certain area?
I take it the DRS new order announcement is stone dead then, and was just speculation?
I take it the DRS new order announcement is stone dead then, and was just speculation?
sprinterguy
Established Member
The project looks to be moving on apace now: A couple of locos including 56069 were outside, stripped back to empty shells a couple of weeks ago, while the shell of 56018 is currently "up on bricks" (or possibly on accommodation bogies? Didn't get a clear look) outside the shed, with some of the others presumably moved inside for work to proceed.
I asked the person in charge this a while ago and they will go and do anything a 66 does.
Entertexthere
Member
Huh. Ironic
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
Do we know for sure which are the "donor" locos for this project yet? Are any of the infamous Healey Mills demics involved?
We don't roster 66's as sets or specific 66's to specific flows. The only restriction we have is not putting Euro spec 66's in certain areas until those drivers are trained on the different cab layout. I understand the 69's will have a standard 66 cab layout.
According to this month’s Railways Illustrated, 56007/009/018/031/032/037/038/060/065/069/077/081/098/104/106/128/311/312
That’s 18 but 56106 at least will be just used to donate spare parts.
The list includes one of my favourites, 56009, which spent some years at Brush Traction as a test bed as 56201, having been withdrawn from service in 1996.
The photo in RI shows 56128, which looks in a real state, having been retrieved from Booth’s scrapyard.
Can't remember the exact numbers but I think anything 66750 and beyond is a euro spec (minus the 10 from DBC). Just a note on my previous comment, what I meant by the 69s having a standard cab, I mean either a conventional pedestal style or wrap around (euro) style...not a 56/66 hybrid....to my knowledge.
cj_1985
Member
- Joined
- 6 Mar 2010
- Messages
- 711
66747-66749 were built as newer euro spec 66s (JT42CWRM)... with the newer style wrap round dash (66/9)
66750-66751 were built as euro spec 66s (JT42CWR) and retain a more basic wrap round dash
66752-66779 build as newer euro style spec 66s (JT42CWRM) with newer style wrap round dash, with a few UK spec refinements (66/9)
I assume that t66 403-t66 405/66790-66792 will be of the earlier style wrap round dash, like 750-751
gimmea50anyday
Established Member
Surprised that four of the Romanian 56s are included given their apparent build quality compared to the rest of the fleet.
Mind, as they found with the Heinz conversions there is no such thing as a standard class 47!
Mind, as they found with the Heinz conversions there is no such thing as a standard class 47!
I had though - perhaps wrongly - that the class 56 build quality issues for Electroputer built locos was primarily electrical and wiring related, and the mechanical side was "okay". As the power unit and associated ancillaries are to be replaced - and cabs(??) this may not be such an issue. The lack of donors from the Romanian batch may be because so many were scrapped as a result of the above issues?
Shaw S Hunter
Established Member
My recollection of a Class 56 Group article was that the main build quality issue was with smaller components within the body structure especially electrical ducting. Some was so poor that once in service the inevitable vibration associated with a large diesel engine was leading to cable insulation being chafed through within the ducting resulting in short circuits that were difficult to trace. A more general issue at Electroputere was a language issue: apparently in the Romania of the time the "clever" people in design/drawing offices conducted their business in German but this was not understood by anyone on the shopfloor! This may seem hard to believe but Ceausescu's Romania was a strange place.
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 15,266
I’m only seeing three in the list above: 56007/009/018.
From BR class 56 diesels by Bradford Barton- this describes in detail the problems encountered with the original batch of 30 Roumanian built locos as follows-
1. Leakage of traction motor gear lubricant due to poor sealant
2. Water corrosion of bearings due to inadequate protection in transit
3. Excessive clearance on traction motor suspension tubes
4. Inadequate torque tightening of bolts causing fractures
5. Flimsy construction of blower stands causing disintegration
6. Unsuitable piping for wiring causing chafing and earth faults
7. Weak brackets causing vibration and bulb failure
8. Vibration and inadequate piping causing hydrostatic oil tank fractures
9. Some support legs for brake equipment panels not welded to floor
10. Inadequate fitting of cab components causing draughts and insecurity
11. Inadequate dressing of frame plates causing stress concentration
12. Poor manufacture of springs and dampers causing rough riding
13. Inadequate bogie lifting brackets
14. Inadequate brake gear lubrication causing seizures
15. Flimsy sanding gear which trapped water and caused freezing
16. Inadequate fitting standards causing loose tyres
17. Footsteps inadequately secured with insufficient clearance
18. Inadequate filing and welding causing adverse fatigue life
It would be interesting to know how much of this was resolved with subsequent repairs and works visits.
1. Leakage of traction motor gear lubricant due to poor sealant
2. Water corrosion of bearings due to inadequate protection in transit
3. Excessive clearance on traction motor suspension tubes
4. Inadequate torque tightening of bolts causing fractures
5. Flimsy construction of blower stands causing disintegration
6. Unsuitable piping for wiring causing chafing and earth faults
7. Weak brackets causing vibration and bulb failure
8. Vibration and inadequate piping causing hydrostatic oil tank fractures
9. Some support legs for brake equipment panels not welded to floor
10. Inadequate fitting of cab components causing draughts and insecurity
11. Inadequate dressing of frame plates causing stress concentration
12. Poor manufacture of springs and dampers causing rough riding
13. Inadequate bogie lifting brackets
14. Inadequate brake gear lubrication causing seizures
15. Flimsy sanding gear which trapped water and caused freezing
16. Inadequate fitting standards causing loose tyres
17. Footsteps inadequately secured with insufficient clearance
18. Inadequate filing and welding causing adverse fatigue life
It would be interesting to know how much of this was resolved with subsequent repairs and works visits.
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 15,266
The Romanians really were rubbish at building the things weren’t they.
Not much has improved.
Dacia the car maker proves my point. They’re cheap & cheap for a reason. Remember the FSO polonez prima? It was a right dog egg of a car but they were cheap & people bought them in the thousands. Within 5 yrs most were scrapped. The Dacia will go the same way. We have Romanians where I work & having said I’m after a new car they told me don’t get a Dacia. Told me it was a really hit car from Romania or something along those lines.
They said never buy Romanian products. All rubbish like the country.
Before pontificating, you could at least get a few basic facts correct. FSO was Polish, not Romanian. Dacia is now owned by Renault, which when I last checked, is French. I'd also suggest your 'inward' views could be 'expanded' somewhat:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania
https://www.uncover-romania.com/about-romania/romanian-people/famous-romanians/