Class 60's to Colas

[Beveridges]

I've been banned/moderated for the last few months, so I'll be gentle;

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Time and time again this fool proves his lack of knowledge

Spot on. My freight and locomotive performance is lacking compared to the pros. Well done on acquiring such a huge amount of knowledge.

and people still bite.

 

[Legzr1]

Thanks

 

[Harbon 1]

As an outsider looking in (from a weeks work experience and a few opinions from drivers), the Class 60s are a lot more popular with train crew. They have much bigger windows in the cabs and feel a lot less cramped, so for a driver, a few hundred less horses in the stable and a bit slower on empty freights doesn't really bother them

It's the other way round for working on the engine however, as a 66 can be undressed quite easily.

Even though I spent the week on Class 66 B11 exams (one day spent with my head in the battery box picking leaves out ) and only got to go on a 60 whilst it was load banked it was still awesome fun at Toton

 

[captainbigun]

'Light on their wheels' is the phrase commonly used by those that have suffered with them over the years - maybe I should have added those three vital words

Any details on what you consider 'heavy' and 'without any bother'?

I've seen first hand the frustration on the faces of drivers and controllers at two different companies using these loco's.

Saying that, there's a chance you know more than JamesB and myself.

Max permitted load is 1600 tonnes, 6M49/6S51 load around this mark and a 92 will shift that lot quite happily.

They are not without there problems, I agree, a product of the complexity required for tunnel operation and power equipment available at the time.

 

[ac6000cw]

Max permitted load is 1600 tonnes, 6M49/6S51 load around this mark and a 92 will shift that lot quite happily.

They are not without there problems, I agree, a product of the complexity required for tunnel operation and power equipment available at the time.

....and they probably suffer from a bit of the 'unwanted step-child' problem too, given the number that have languished out-of-use over the years.

 

[sprinterguy]

Max permitted load is 1600 tonnes, 6M49/6S51 load around this mark and a 92 will shift that lot quite happily.

They are not without there problems, I agree, a product of the complexity required for tunnel operation and power equipment available at the time.

Is that all, at present? hock: A few years ago, class 92s were being trialled on EWS coal trains over the Northern stretches of the WCML (and apparently more recently under DB Schenker, too) – If the intention was for them to haul loaded trains, then that would weigh in at 21 x 102 tonne high capacity hoppers. Perhaps the trials were unsuccessful and this is why we have seen no further development of this idea.

Even if the trials only involved empty hoppers then the following photo is interesting with, seemingly three class 92 coupled dead inside the standard HTA hopper rake (Though I suppose still well within a 1600 tonne limit):
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qkX1FZ5El7I/UAB7AHYxGPI/AAAAAAAAGjA/V-aJMFCx03s/s1600/4+x+92s+Winwick.jpg

I was always led to believe that one of the benefits of introducing surplus class 92s to the West Coast was that a single loco was able to replace the pair of 90s that were required on some of the heavier former Railfreight Distribution workings. I am but a casual observer though, so perhaps I’m wrong.

 

[Legzr1]

Max permitted load is 1600 tonnes, 6M49/6S51 load around this mark and a 92 will shift that lot quite happily.

So the odd intermodal train then.

No good for a set of coal, biomass, fuel, stone or steel.

As I hinted at earlier, power ratings mean nothing if they don't translate to tractive effort and you could have 9K bhp or 900K bhp and it matters little - if the wheels spin you're not going to get moving.

They're fickle machines and really have no place in pulling heavy freight as trials have shown.

 

[#1 driver]

What weight do biomass trains run to ?

 

[Legzr1]

21 sets around 1700T - hook and haul 23 around 1850, DBS 25 sets must be getting close to 2000T.

 

[andy123]

Absolutely correct. Claims that a 60 has reached 75mph are b*llox.

I will check my class 60 driver's manual when I get in work, but I am pretty certain they will also dump the emergency brake not much further on past 63mph.

A 66 will lose power at around 78mph and dump the emergency brake at around 79-80mph. (I will double check those figures tomorrow, but they are roughly around that).



Again, b*llox. The Class 66 is OLD technology. The electronics on a 66 live in the back wall of number 1 cab and they live in two small cabinets. In the clean air and engine compartments, its lots of pipes, valves and wiring conduits. Very much traditional technology.

The only reason that 66's are so prevalent on today's railway is that they are so basic and can withstand being thrashed day in day out.

On the other hand, a Class 60 is like a Nuclear sub. The Clean air compartment has masses of Electronics in numerous sealed cubicles, LED fault indication panels, HUGE amounts of wiring looms and is very tight space wise. Indeed, an idea of how much more technologically advanced a 60 is compared to a 66 is that if you don't close the door between the entrance vestibule and the clean air compartment, the electronics throw a fit and the loco goes into a low power fault setting.

Jim

60,s are capable of over 75mph its just the software ie computer restricts to 63mph obviously you were not on them when with early software
Even the field current/voltage reduction continued well past 60mph so amps did not drop off .But the loco was only intended for 60mph so would be hard on motors and track . In BR and pre Qtron days driver would often exceed
60mph so were restricted via computer

 

[andy123]

When we first got 60,s they were not restricted to 60 mph and would carry on making plenty of amps well up to 75 mph
Yes the authorised max speed has all-ways been 60 mph and 75 mph would be bad for TM,s
As for ability to haul heaver trains than 66,s its not all down to gearing loads of torque without proper control equals wheel slip
60,s have lot more better traction control than 66 ie sepex motors 6 motor probes ect as opposed to the fairly simple super series system on 66 .That why in real terms the 60 was lot more expensive .As for speed issue ask any one who worked trains with them in early days they did go well over 60 mph but as far as i know have never been authorised to