Class 60's- an idea

[IanBanks-Jones]

Of the 100 class 60's built, only a handful are in use. Wouldn't it be a good idea for someone to buy, re-gear, and eth up a number, say 30 of them? They are a great deal younger than the class 47's, and would probably see off the remaining elderly 37's.

 

[ash39]

It's a nice idea but where's the demand? Not all the 67s are kept busy, and they are twice as fast to start with and already have eth.

I would imagine the weight of a 60 would make them unsuitable for most passenger trains anyway. I reckon keep doing what Dbs are doing, as demand increases rather than order/lease more 66's, overhaul the 60's in store.

 

[sprinterguy]

and would probably see off the remaining elderly 37's.

Not with their hefty axle weight, and massively thirsty 3,100hp engine they wouldn't! Completely the wrong spec of loco for the sort of duties the 37s should be used for.

Welcome to the forum though

 

[IanBanks-Jones]

That's me told then. I still can't understand how the 37's saw favour with ews. They're rather big and bulky when compared to the class 33's, which are of a similar power bracket (and all eth fitted). Of course, the 'heavy' freight 37's are a different case.

 

[LE Greys]

What's really needed is a new Type 3 Bo-Bo, with 1,750 hp and R/A 5. Something that would handle the light freight they're currently using 67s on, along with railhead treatment trains, other permanent way duties, empty stock, and all the other rag, tag and bobtail duties that don't really merit a Type 5. They might take over the Fort William sleeper portion, and perhaps a few other light passenger duties as well. Thing is, a small, light locomotive is surprisingly hard to find these days, unless you take a metre-gauge design and scale it up.

 

[GNERman]

...and perhaps a top speed of 90/100 mph? But yeah, that would be ideal.

 

[sprinterguy]

That's me told then. I still can't understand how the 37's saw favour with ews. They're rather big and bulky when compared to the class 33's, which are of a similar power bracket (and all eth fitted). Of course, the 'heavy' freight 37's are a different case.

There were many, many more 37s in service at the start of privatisation than there were 33s: There would never have been enough 33s to cover all the duties EWS had for 37s. Plus 37s operated pretty much universally across the network, so drivers were already trained up on them, while 33s were restricted to a very small geographical area so would have required a massive programme of driver training and would probably have had to have been cleared for a large number of routes that they had never previously worked. And even the 37s with single fuel tanks had a greater fuel capacity than the 33s; the large number with twin fuel tanks much, much more.

The 37s were already well established when EWS took over, EWS were hardly likely to instigate a massive shake up of loco rosters when the system that was in place worked anyway.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What's really needed is a new Type 3 Bo-Bo, with 1,750 hp and R/A 5. Something that would handle the light freight they're currently using 67s on, along with railhead treatment trains, other permanent way duties, empty stock, and all the other rag, tag and bobtail duties that don't really merit a Type 5. They might take over the Fort William sleeper portion, and perhaps a few other light passenger duties as well. Thing is, a small, light locomotive is surprisingly hard to find these days, unless you take a metre-gauge design and scale it up.

It's a shame that Railfreight didn't take the class 38 design further in the mid to late eighties then!

 

[IanBanks-Jones]

Guess I'm just biased. Its easy to get bored of tractors when you don't live in the south. The cromptons fascinated me after holidaying in Bournemouth in the late 80's.

And as for a new type 3, if we still had a BR, they could build them in house. They could re-engine the 37's- a sort of 57 'lite' if you will

 

[Bevan Price]

If there had been no Voyagers and other fast dmu's, it might have been worth investigating a "passenger" conversion of some 60's. However, conversion of Class 58 to e.t.h.-fitted locos might have been a better idea. Despite their 75 mph limit, in the days before data recorders & radar traps, Class 58 showed they were capable of well over 90 mph on some railtours.

 

[sprinterguy]

Guess I'm just biased. Its easy to get bored of tractors when you don't live in the south. The cromptons fascinated me after holidaying in Bournemouth in the late 80's.

Bored of 37s? How can you speak of such a thing?

Coming from the north east, 33s have always been a fairly rare bird, but I've still never been keen on them. They've never struck me as having the same raw power as 37s. Wishy-washy southerners, are 33s.

 

[IanBanks-Jones]

I'm sure that 80-90 mph would have blown them up very quickly if they were doing it all the time. Slight divergence, but I once clocked an HST on the mml between Leicester and Wellingborough at well over 100mph. I knew they were capable of more easily, but it was still over the line speed limit, and it could've even been under semaphores!

 

[Pen Mill]

DRS obviously don't want to go down a route of bringing in 60s as they have ordered 15 brand new Vossloh Eurolight (New class 68 ?) locos presumably as fleet replacement for 37/47s .

 

[O L Leigh]

The problem these days is that everyone wants a standardised fleet for fairly obvious reasons, so a smaller fleet of lower output locos is hardly going to be attractive.

However, this need not have precluded a lower output diesel-electric loco being procured. Indeed, I have suggested in the past that the newer generation of locos could have utilised technology already well-known in the automotive sector by shutting down half the engine when being used on light duties. After all, a pair of Cl66s is overkill when sandwiching a pair of RHTT wagons. They could have saved fuel and been more efficiently utilised if only they could turn down the wick a bit and run within the Type 3 power bracket on half an engine as well as running as a Type 5 when hauling something a bit heavier. ETS is a bit of a problem, though. Either they all get it or none of them do. Having a small sub-class is not efficient, but then neither is specifying a system for hundreds of locos that will never be used.

But to come back on-topic, the Cl60s would make lousy passenger engines. They were designed for heavy freight such as coal, steel and aggregates, so to make them even halfway suitable for "proper" passenger work would take huge amounts of money and lots of work. And for what? There' hardly a lot of work for the remaining ETS Cl37s and Cl47s as it is, never mind the suitable Cl67s, so where's the need to spend vast sums of money on converting a heavy freight loco for passenger use?

No, these locos are either going to find some use (either here or overseas, like the Cl56s and Cl58s) or will go for dog food tins. Harsh, but that's the way of it.

O L Leigh

 

[junglejames]

Not with their hefty axle weight, and massively thirsty 3,100hp engine they wouldn't! Completely the wrong spec of loco for the sort of duties the 37s should be used for.

Welcome to the forum though

It would be interesting to know what 60s are like fuel wise compared to 37s. I dont think there would be much in it. Remember 60s are extrmely fuel thrifty. The most efficient type 5s we have i think.

This idea with the 60s isnt such a good idea though. The amount of work that would be required, you may as well build new.

60s are best left as they are. If the refurbs can settle down and become more reliable, then Id look into upping their speed like its supposedly possible to do (without regearing), and you have a loco which can do all that a 66 can, plus an awful lot more, and for less fuel.

 

[Schnellzug]

Since the problem with them seems to be that the engines are not very reliable, I wonder why DBS didn't instal new engines since they were spending so much on heavy general overhauls for them in any case. How about Caterpillar, say?

 

[jopsuk]

In the "standardised" loco idea, perhaps the ideal would have been a fleet of mini-66s- with a V8 version of the V12 engine, and a shorter body- but still the same profile, same cabs, same controls. Still Co-Co to keep the axle loading low to make it a direct Class 37 replacement. How upset would it have made enthuisiasts if the entire EWS fleet had ended up looking more or less identical- if they'd sold the 60s on to other operators (abroad?), instead just having a fleet of 59s, 66s and mini-66s (plus the 67s for passenger use)? Even more so if the other freight operators had done the same (including DRS). Could even have had the potential for an electric version. Envisage a rail system where absolutely every freight train is hauled by a "shed"...

 

[HSTEd]

Things like RHTTs that require top and tailed locomotievs but not much power is the sort of thing MPV/CargoSprinters should be doing in my opinion.

 

[jopsuk]

They do- but there aren't enough of them.

 

[Schnellzug]

In the "standardised" loco idea, perhaps the ideal would have been a fleet of mini-66s- with a V8 version of the V12 engine, and a shorter body- but still the same profile, same cabs, same controls. Still Co-Co to keep the axle loading low to make it a direct Class 37 replacement. How upset would it have made enthuisiasts if the entire EWS fleet had ended up looking more or less identical- if they'd sold the 60s on to other operators (abroad?), instead just having a fleet of 59s, 66s and mini-66s (plus the 67s for passenger use)? Even more so if the other freight operators had done the same (including DRS). Could even have had the potential for an electric version. Envisage a rail system where absolutely every freight train is hauled by a "shed"...

or alternatively, save a lot of design costs by buying what was effectively available off the shelf from Mak/Vossloh (modified, of course, to fit the loading gauge)? Although, of course, an American owned company wouldn't have bought Yurpean rubbish.

 

[Marvin]

No, [the class 60s] are either going to find some use (either here or overseas, like the Cl56s and Cl58s) or will go for dog food tins. Harsh, but that's the way of it.

I sincerely hope that at least one or two will be preserved!

 

[tirphil]

I sincerely hope that at least one or two will be preserved!

There is a group of enthusiastic souls who have made it their mission to do just that.

http://www.c60pg.co.uk/default.html

 

[YorkshireBear]

If we can preserve a 58 then a 60 should be able to be preserved too. Isnt one of them saved for national collection or is that a 58?

 

[sprinterguy]

If we can preserve a 58 then a 60 should be able to be preserved too. Isnt one of them saved for national collection or is that a 58?

Both 58050 and 60100 are earmarked a place in the National Collection

 

[LE Greys]

Both 58050 and 60100 are earmarked a place in the National Collection

AIUI, the last diesel locos to be made entirely at Doncaster and Loughborough respectively.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In the "standardised" loco idea, perhaps the ideal would have been a fleet of mini-66s- with a V8 version of the V12 engine, and a shorter body- but still the same profile, same cabs, same controls. Still Co-Co to keep the axle loading low to make it a direct Class 37 replacement. How upset would it have made enthuisiasts if the entire EWS fleet had ended up looking more or less identical- if they'd sold the 60s on to other operators (abroad?), instead just having a fleet of 59s, 66s and mini-66s (plus the 67s for passenger use)? Even more so if the other freight operators had done the same (including DRS). Could even have had the potential for an electric version. Envisage a rail system where absolutely every freight train is hauled by a "shed"...

Well, yes, I'm afraid that would be the case, but it would be decidedly more efficient than having the combination of Type 5s and relics that we have today. It's probably still possible, but I hope they make a few more concessions to styling (flush sides, rounded cab roofs, etc) with whatever the next class is.

 

[HSTEd]

Gut them and fit them out as electrodiesels.

 

[IanBanks-Jones]

That would leave you with an underpowered, overweight leccy, and an underpowered, overweight diesel. Nobody would want them. Something with similar output to a 81-85, or a 31 depending on its mode would be far from desirable. Of course, the all electric version of the 60 exists. It's a class 92

 

[HSTEd]

That would leave you with an underpowered, overweight leccy, and an underpowered, overweight diesel. Nobody would want them. Something with similar output to a 81-85, or a 31 depending on its mode would be far from desirable. Of course, the all electric version of the 60 exists. It's a class 92

As it is we have no use for them, as indicated by them rusting away in storage.
And I think we could do rather better than the Cl31s at-rail horsepower (most transmissions these days can be 80+ percent efficient) giving us something more like a Cl33 in terms of at rail horsepower.

And why woudl it be any heavier than it is now since your apparently demanding it have a rather small traction transformer and a far smaller engine? And since it would be a new CAT plant it would have superior power:volume.

 

[Bevan Price]

In the "standardised" loco idea, perhaps the ideal would have been a fleet of mini-66s- with a V8 version of the V12 engine, and a shorter body- but still the same profile, same cabs, same controls. Still Co-Co to keep the axle loading low to make it a direct Class 37 replacement. How upset would it have made enthuisiasts if the entire EWS fleet had ended up looking more or less identical- if they'd sold the 60s on to other operators (abroad?), instead just having a fleet of 59s, 66s and mini-66s (plus the 67s for passenger use)? ...

Classes 59 & 66 do not seem to have proved capable of replacing Class 60 on some jobs. For example, the Liverpool Bulk Terminal to Fiddlers Ferry coal workings. Class 60 manages 23 loaded wagons up the steeply graded section out of the docks (1 in 60 at its steepest.) Classes 59/2 and 66/0 have been tried, but these days, when a 66 is used, they either tend to leave a few wagons empty, or use a shorter train. Also, Class 60 remains the preferred power for the Tunstead - Oakleigh services.

So, if DBS wants to replace Class 60, but keep some of these coal & stone train contracts, they might need to contemplate getting a small batch of 70's..........

 

[HSTEd]

I have discovered that the 8 cylinder Mirlees Blackstone MB275 engine used in Cl60 weighs.... an awful lot, almost a proposterously large 24 tonnes.

You could replace that wtih a smaller, higher speed, similar power output diesel and still have enough weight to pack in a normal traction transformer.

Giving you a locomotive with the same capabilities as the Class 60 but an ED.....

 

[Schnellzug]

As it is we have no use for them, as indicated by them rusting away in storage.
And I think we could do rather better than the Cl31s at-rail horsepower (most transmissions these days can be 80+ percent efficient) giving us something more like a Cl33 in terms of at rail horsepower.

And why woudl it be any heavier than it is now since your apparently demanding it have a rather small traction transformer and a far smaller engine? And since it would be a new CAT plant it would have superior power:volume.

DBS have not enough use for all of them; that's not necessarily the same as no one having a use for them. It's well known how reluctant DBS, like EWS before them, are to sell anything on until it's either been comprehensively stripped or it's rusted into one solid lump.