Class 60's- an idea

[ainsworth74]

DBS have not enough use for all of them; that's not necessarily the same as no one having a use for them.

Well let's assume all 100 were available we can take about 20 off of that for DBS to use so that leaves a fleet of 80 (only it doesn't because a lot of them are in poor condition but that's beside the point). We now have a fleet of very powerful type 5 locomotives so what extra work can they do? Most FOCs seem happy to use 66s on everything and when a 66 won't do Freightliner now have 70s to cover that traffic so there doesn't seem to be much extra freight work going. 60s don't have ETS so they can't immediately be deployed onto charters or other passenger work and they're top speed is (without modification) 60mph again not brilliant for passenger work.

I'm yet to be convinced there is a hole in the market for them to fill.

 

[Yew]

What sort of acceleration would a 60 have with say 10 mk3's?

 

[Schnellzug]

Well let's assume all 100 were available we can take about 20 off of that for DBS to use so that leaves a fleet of 80 (only it doesn't because a lot of them are in poor condition but that's beside the point). We now have a fleet of very powerful type 5 locomotives so what extra work can they do? Most FOCs seem happy to use 66s on everything .

Well, they bought loads, because they were immediately available and cleared for use just about anywhere. The fact that Freightliner and DRS have subsequently diversified suggests that while decent general purpose locos, they're not best suited for some tasks. (In fact, DRS have returned a number of their 66s, haven't they, and FL have sent a few to Poland and it's not as if they've been losing traffic, even if that may have been why EWS sent so many to France.) Anyway, the reason DBS laid a lot of the 60s up was because they lost traffic, not because they weren't suited to the task.

 

[ainsworth74]

What sort of acceleration would a 60 have with say 10 mk3's?

Can't imagine it would be very good they were designed to haul heavy trains not to start light trains and get up to speed quickly (and again they don't have ETS).

Well, they bought loads, because they were immediately available and cleared for use just about anywhere. The fact that Freightliner and DRS have subsequently diversified suggests that while decent general purpose locos, they're not best suited for some tasks. (In fact, DRS have returned a number of their 66s, haven't they, and FL have sent a few to Poland and it's not as if they've been losing traffic, even if that may have been why EWS sent so many to France.) Anyway, the reason DBS laid a lot of the 60s up was because they lost traffic, not because they weren't suited to the task.

So what traffic could they come in and take over (assuming that DBS were willing to part with some of them)? As I said above I'm not convinced there is much for a big type 5 to do that it isn't already.

 

[Smudger105e]

Anyway, the reason DBS laid a lot of the 60s up was because they lost traffic, not because they weren't suited to the task.

The reason the 60s were laid up was because their bogies and power units were getting towards their maximum hours, or several stuck a leg out of the bed.

I hear rumours that DBS are planning to put 80 class 60s back in service as demand for traffic increases, although they will not all be "super 60s".

 

[LE Greys]

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

Someone from the DfT once suggested something like this instead of the Class 70s. The 92s have a lot of equipment inside them, much of which they do not need, since they are quad-voltage locos. Take a lot of that out, and I don't know whether there would be enough space for an MTU 12V, but the chap from the DfT seemed to think so, and was trying to persuade Freightliner that this would be a better idea than an over-powered diesel, and frankly I agree with him. The main reason 70s are needed is to provide enough power to shift heavy trains out of the way of electric expresses. Well, electric power does pretty much the same. Diesel power is only really needed for plodding along at 45 mph (say between Peterborough and Felixstowe) so 1,800 hp is perfectly adequate. The two problems are weight and gradients. Weight, because you would start to reach Class 40 dimensions if you are not careful (1Co-Co1s are not popular with the permanent way people). Gradient, because 1,800 hp is going to have a tough time moving a heavy container train up Lickey (since electric power would be no help here).

 

[HSTEd]

Weight, because you would start to reach Class 40 dimensions if you are not careful (1Co-Co1s are not popular with the permanent way people). Gradient, because 1,800 hp is going to have a tough time moving a heavy container train up Lickey (since electric power would be no help here).

I don't think you would.

The mirrlees Blackstone engine in the Cl60 as is derives ~2350kW (3100hp) and is 27t.

You could provide a CAT 3516C with a similar power output for something on order of 8-9t (if the technical data they provide is good enough for this sort of thing).

This saves you nigh on 20t which is easily enough for a traction transformer and so on, which is possibly only on order of 5-6t anyway (so a heavier engine could be used). (An ABB ~6000hp transformer specced for the ALP-45DP to provide that power rating on 25Hz weighed in at ten tonnes and a 50Hz transformer for half the power rating should be rather lighter).

The larger maintenance requirements of a higher speed diesel could be offset by the reduced number of hours the engine would be running for.

EDIT: Even an EMD 12-710G with ~3000hp only weighs in at 15 tonnes.

 

[junglejames]

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"...

Only EWS would have been daft enough to do that, as it would have meant a pure substandard fleet. 66s are no good for some things, and use far too much fuel. Also a suspect build/ design quality. A smaller version of these to replace 37s would be daft.
67s are very poor in so many ways. It wouldnt have been long before someone else (oh hold on, DRS) realised something else was required.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well let's assume all 100 were available we can take about 20 off of that for DBS to use so that leaves a fleet of 80 (only it doesn't because a lot of them are in poor condition but that's beside the point). We now have a fleet of very powerful type 5 locomotives so what extra work can they do? Most FOCs seem happy to use 66s on everything and when a 66 won't do Freightliner now have 70s to cover that traffic so there doesn't seem to be much extra freight work going. 60s don't have ETS so they can't immediately be deployed onto charters or other passenger work and they're top speed is (without modification) 60mph again not brilliant for passenger work.

I'm yet to be convinced there is a hole in the market for them to fill.

Not many people have a use for them now, but thats because EWS/ DB have been leaving them to rot and not selling them on. Would Freightliner have gone for 70s if they had a choice? Would DRS have decided they may have been able to diversify if they had some 60s?

The other FOCs are seemingly happy with 66s and 70s (doesnt mean they definitely are happy) because they never had much of a choice. Cheap to buy, and 60s were not being sold.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What sort of acceleration would a 60 have with say 10 mk3's?

Rather good I would have thought. Plenty of power, CoCo, and not geared for speed. Something geared like a 60 should be rather nippy off the mark with a light train.

 

[LE Greys]

I don't think you would.

The mirrlees Blackstone engine in the Cl60 as is derives ~2350kW (3100hp) and is 27t.

You could provide a CAT 3516C with a similar power output for something on order of 8-9t (if the technical data they provide is good enough for this sort of thing).

This saves you nigh on 20t which is easily enough for a traction transformer and so on, which is possibly only on order of 5-6t anyway (so a heavier engine could be used). (An ABB ~6000hp transformer specced for the ALP-45DP to provide that power rating on 25Hz weighed in at ten tonnes and a 50Hz transformer for half the power rating should be rather lighter).

The larger maintenance requirements of a higher speed diesel could be offset by the reduced number of hours the engine would be running for.

EDIT: Even an EMD 12-710G with ~3000hp only weighs in at 15 tonnes.

I was assuming an MTU 12V 4000R41R, as used in the Vossloh G1206, which is actually quite light at 6 tons, then guessing at alternator and fuel weight being four times that, so total 30 tons (the full-size G1206 weighs 80 tons - not sure how much is body and bogies). That's 1,851 hp, which is slightly more powerful than a Class 37. I'm assuming that the locos would have to work to Felixstowe and Southampton on a regular basis, so the power units would see a lot of use, meaning that down-rating them would be a good idea, and anyway 1,500 rpm is still pretty high by British standards. This was also me being massively conservative with 30 tons for the complete power train. Another thing is that I don't think there is much space inside a 92, even with all the d.c. equipment removed (is the 1,500 V/3,000V equipment still in there?). I'd like to keep the 750V capacity, but can the South Western electrification cope with it even if there's space? Assuming that the a.c. equipment gets replaced as well might buy some more space, and a 12V 4000 can fit inside the much smaller G1206. It should work, but I'm no expert.

 

[matchmaker]

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.

Class 37 more power than class 33.
Class 37 far greater tractive effort than class 33.
Class 37 better route availability than class 33.

That explain it? :roll:

 

[Smudger105e]

Class 37 more power than class 33.
Class 37 far greater tractive effort than class 33.
Class 37 better route availability than class 33.

That explain it? :roll:

Both type 3
class 33 Bo Bo
Axle loadings similar

 

[LE Greys]

Both type 3
class 33 Bo Bo
Axle loadings similar

Gearing is different as well. The 33 is much more of a passenger engine, designed specifically for the Southern Region. Most 37s were regeared to allow a top speed of 70 mph, giving much better adhesion for freight traffic. EWS is a freight company, and doesn't have to worry about push-pull workings with a pair of 4-TCs, although nobody else does either these days.

 

[IanBanks-Jones]

Okay.

General consensus seems to be that the 60's are best left as they are. DBS seem to be inclined to let them rust rather than give them up. That is their perogative, even if we think it's wrong.

In a few years though, the 37's will be even more overdue for replacement. What sort of spec, and volume of locomotive will be required to replace them? And more importantly, who will actually need them?

Also, is it too much to hope they will be styled rather than just built for functionality?

 

[HSTEd]

Well In my opinion the Class 20s will be replaced by something like the CargoSprinter on the flask and RHTT duties.

And the Class 37s will be replaced by more Type 5s.

American Railway practice has determined that maintenance costs for locomotives are largely independent of power rating, hence the trend there for fewer more and more powerful locomotives. Since American practice is now in the ascedent, I don't see how we can expect anything different here.

 

[LE Greys]

Well In my opinion the Class 20s will be replaced by something like the CargoSprinter on the flask and RHTT duties.

And the Class 37s will be replaced by more Type 5s.

American Railway practice has determined that maintenance costs for locomotives are largely independent of power rating, hence the trend there for fewer more and more powerful locomotives. Since American practice is now in the ascedent, I don't see how we can expect anything different here.

That's probably the result of American fuel prices. I have absolutely no idea about relative fuel and maintenance costs, but I do know that fuel is relatively more expensive over here. Hopefully, DBS will apply some German financial modelling to the situation.

 

[billabob]

I am suprised that as DBS are only bringing a limited number back into service that someone like DBS of FL haven't got any as really they are quite good locomotives on heavy stone trains like those at peak forest. Couldn't they be used on FL heavy haul services?

 

[ainsworth74]

Couldn't they be used on FL heavy haul services?

Only if DBS wanted to sell them and FL wanted to pay to have the reconditioned for mainline use (a lot of them are in pretty poor state).

 

[sprinterguy]

Only if DBS wanted to sell them and FL wanted to pay to have the reconditioned for mainline use (a lot of them are in pretty poor state).

Most certainly, and also Freightliner has its' 66/6s for heavier duty work (Although even these aren't up to the grade of the 60s) which it started operating before EWS (as they were then) started making major inroads into the 60 fleet. And now it seems they've gone down the road of purchasing class 70s for the heavier jobs: They'll certainly get a greater return from them over the term of their operational lives than if they had taken over a number of second-hand class 60s.

 

[spudfan]

Regarding earlier comments.
As far as I remember the class 31 locos were originally fitted with a Mirlees diesel engine but it was not a great success in the loco so was changed.
Some 66's have been sent abroad it is true. This may in part be explained by a down turn in business but also it is true to say that EWS, Freightliner etc are getting more work done per loco than BR ever did. Today's business companies will not do things like BR, where if a loco failed or was damaged it could sit for months awaiting repair. Today, with intensive maitenance schedules, a loco is expected to spend most of it's life out earning it's keep.
I'd hazard a guess that in their relatively short lives the class 66 has been worked more intensively than locos under BR.
I accept that the Deltics and the HST were very intensively used but they had service and maintenance to match like the 66's but both Deltic and HST were specialised traction and not used for BR's general work.
When the class 66 was ordered EWS got what they specified. They did not specify 250 locos with the haulage capabilities of a 59 but opted for the loco that would fit into the business the thought would be there.Also I'd say that when ordering the class 66 they were told by Railtrack that 250 60 mph locos would not be tolerated clogging up the lines and delaying passenger trains.Though not popular with some (maybe even most enthusiasts) the class 66 has proven to be a reliable and a sound business investment.
The multiple unit capability is there to allow units of any power to be made up as necessary. Today people talk about locos being fitted with two or more modest sized power units and only using the bare number of power units dictated by the load. This mirrors the multiple unit capability system of building up a powerful loco when needed then downsizing again when the job was done.
Remember how in days gone by how a single power unit was deemed a better option than a number of smaller units in a loco. With modern technology this seems to be the way things will go.
Regarding the class 60 loco, there probably is not the constant volume of work necessary for the whole fleet to be put back into action. Any cost involved in getting them back on the mainline must be balanced with the projected income and running/maintenance cost of what ever number of locos is chosen. Though suited for heavy haulage, once again the 60 mph speed limit will probably preclude a large number being used for general freight owing to pathing restrictions.Once again if EWS said that all 100 class 60 locos were to be reinstated and used on general freight when not required for the heavy block train duties, I'd say they would be told to think again and they would lose business while waiting to get slots at 60 mph as the everyday norm.
So the class 60 is good at what it does and unless EWS is given long term guarantees for work suitable to them, it will only have the bear number necessary to do the work. Not much point business wise having 70 locos ready and only work available for 20 with the rest sitting waiting in hope for work.
The 66 will continue to work within it's specifications and do what it was designed to do.

 

[dubscottie]

There is one simple reason why the 60's are laid up.. DBS owns them outright so don't lose money with them being idle..

They lease the 66's so it is in their interest to find as much work for them as possible.

As for 60 conversions, any work to make them lighter would need a redesigned bogie. You cant just shed 30 odd tons without the loco sitting to high on its bogies (and thus out of gauge)

The 57's had weights added and most Ex steam heat BR locos had concrete blocks added to keep them at the same weight they were when the boilers where fitted.