Class 66 Preservation

[gedj2]

does anybody know if as yet a class 66 preservation group has been formed?

:-?

 

[GB]

Do they need preserving then?

 

[mumrar]

They do need preserving, railfreight growth has been largely down to their sterling if boring performance throughout the country where pairs of locos would be uneconomical.

 

[fairlie]

Preservation? They were only introduced about yesterday...

 

[Bittern]

I think preservationists should be looking towards the older stuff that has more of an impact on us than the modern stuff.

 

[truckman060473]

hmm. make that around 12-13yrs. look what happened to the 60's when they were under 20yrs old. dwindled away to 9 operational locos. but on the other hand DBS do have 250 of the 66's which is 150 more than the 60's

 

[Bittern]

You also have Freightliner and DRS as well.

 

[mumrar]

Many of EWS's Class 66s have exceeded the working lifetime mileages of Class 37s and 56s etc in the shorter timespan. They'll need major work soon to keep them on the frontline, same goes for Freightliner locos too.

I don't see what loco has more impact on us than Class 66s though, as a railway.

 

[The Decapod]

I imagine the similar Class 59's will be pensioned off before the 66's, but even that is likely to be many years away!

 

[Anon Mouse]

Get some Bones preserved first!

 

[50Fan91]

This is a very forward thinking post! Although it is true that the 66s are a Long way off being preserved, having a group set up to think about preservation is undoubtedly a good idea.

Lest I should go off at a tangent, how many classes from the past might have been saved if there was sufficient planning in place to be ready to preserve a said loco example when the time came?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Get some Bones preserved first!

And yes I do agree with you there!

 

[gedj2]

Morning All,

I appeared to have sparked an interesting debate, the reasoning behind my initial post was that if we knew 50-60 years ago what we know now a lot of classes of locos, be they steam, diesel, electric or hydraulic that have been lost to us would still be around today. So if we were to put in place arrangements to cover their future preservation, is that a bad thing? Doesn't have to be a 66, I mention that type only because I saw what on Sunday looking sad and lonely, could be any class, but surely we need to act or am I being a bit daft? :eek: Answers, as they say, on a postcard.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Has anyone thought about space? Whether or not we could have saved other classes with forward planning - where would we put them? Most railways are full. Undoubtably had we saved more, some would have gone to booths anyway.

 

[sprinterguy]

It would be difficult to muster support for a preservation society aiming to preserve an example of a loco class that still has many more years of useful life ahead of it and will be a regular sight on the national network for some time yet. For many the impetus to preserve an example of a particular loco or vehicle type only occurs when inroads begin to be made into their numbers and the continued existence of the class in question is seen to be threatened.

I can’t get my head around the idea that there are preservation groups for class 60s and Pacers now: Not because it doesn’t make sense to be raising support now to save an example of both in the future, but because both these train types were brand new/entering service when I was a lad. The indecent haste that EWS/DB Schenker have expended to rid themselves of the 60s when they only saw less than twenty years of squadron service is criminal.

 

[Anon Mouse]

I do however feel that say 66001 should be arranged to become part of the national collection once withdrawn......

 

[junglejames]

They do need preserving, railfreight growth has been largely down to their sterling if boring performance throughout the country where pairs of locos would be uneconomical.

Its got very little to do with replacing pairs of locos, and more to do with their reliable, economical performance. Remember they killed off 56's and 58s, two types of loco that are stronger than a 66.
Im not fully convinced they have had as much of an effect as you claim though. Yes they are probably more reliable than anything they replaced, but how much more reliable? And did this lead to the massive railfreight growth?
Remember both Freightliner and DRS also grew quite a lot, and before their 66s came on scene.

Id say the biggest effect they have had, is, in the long term, reducing EWS' costs, through having a much more simple fleet to maintain.

Yes they are good locos (there is no denying that), but what did they effectively replace? 47s? No, because they also needed 67s before killing them off. 56s or 58s? Nope, not effectively, because they are not as strong as them. All we get now is more frequent, but lighter, trains.

Note im not saying they aren't good, and no doubt in the long term, it has proven to be a very good move by EWS, but Im just wondering if the locos have had as big a say on railfreight growth as claimed, or if they have managed to effectively replace any other loco?
In my mind, they should have been a little bit stronger. But hey, thats me.

 

[sprinterguy]

Only in engine horsepower do class 66s compare unfavourably to class 56s and 58s. Class 66s are superior in both Maximum and Continuous Power Ratings, and in their power at rail (AFAIK), which is what really counts. Train loadings certainly haven’t been reduced since class 66s took over: The HTA coal hopper rakes initially ran in nineteen wagon formations weighing in at 1938t, and have since been extended to twenty one wagons in length, at a total weight of 2142t. This compares to HAA rakes of thirty six wagons at 1800t and forty wagons at 2000t, and the 66s were similarly just as capable at handling the forty wagon HAA coal hopper rakes when they were still in service. The only area where 66s cannot compete is against the heaviest loads handled by 60s, such as the 28 wagon Lindsey to Jarrow oil trains and the Westerleigh to Robeston flows. 66s have successfully replaced class 60s on some of their lighter duties, such as the South Wales to Teesside steel trains, which even then are no stroll in the park in terms of tonnage.

Having one standard fleet of a single locomotive type is always going to be more economical and effective than maintaining smaller fleets of different loco types. DB Schenker are achieving much higher utilisation figures for their 66s than they ever did with the older loco classes: While it has made the UK railway scene boring for enthusiasts, the fact that you hardly see any locos hanging around yards for long periods of time, when in the past there’d be rows of locos on shed, is testament to this fact.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I do however feel that say 66001 should be arranged to become part of the national collection once withdrawn......

I agree. You would hope that the NRM see 66001 as historically significant enough for acceptance into the national collection.

With the large number of 66s in service in the UK, it is surely inevitable that multiple members of the class will reach preservation with various owners.

 

[Oswyntail]

...With the large number of 66s in service in the UK, it is surely inevitable that multiple members of the class will reach preservation with various owners.

What is needed, not just for 66s but over the whole range, is a co-ordinated policy, over all preservation facilities. The current "system", where a few enthusiasts club together to "preserve" a "celebrity", has resulted in preservation resources being spread much too thinly over the whole country, and many locos apparently preserved, yet rusting away because no one can afford to maintain or run them. And tours with preserved locos struggle to turn a profit (I believe - I may be wrong) because there is nothing special about 37 (or whatever) haulage! Would it not be better to control things. As a starter, have a national body to preserve just 2 of any class, maintain one with a mainline certificate, and have the other basically as a static exhibit somewhere, but possibly with the ability to run on preserved lines; make sure that others are used to provide sufficient spares; generate income from tours and guest spots on preserved lines, with the interest maintained by rarity value. Be realistic - just because a loco was the first to have a white spodge added to the basic livery does not make it worth saving - it is a machine that is very similar to all others in that class.

 

[sprinterguy]

What is needed, not just for 66s but over the whole range, is a co-ordinated policy, over all preservation facilities. The current "system", where a few enthusiasts club together to "preserve" a "celebrity", has resulted in preservation resources being spread much too thinly over the whole country, and many locos apparently preserved, yet rusting away because no one can afford to maintain or run them. And tours with preserved locos struggle to turn a profit (I believe - I may be wrong) because there is nothing special about 37 (or whatever) haulage! Would it not be better to control things. As a starter, have a national body to preserve just 2 of any class, maintain one with a mainline certificate, and have the other basically as a static exhibit somewhere, but possibly with the ability to run on preserved lines; make sure that others are used to provide sufficient spares; generate income from tours and guest spots on preserved lines, with the interest maintained by rarity value. Be realistic - just because a loco was the first to have a white spodge added to the basic livery does not make it worth saving - it is a machine that is very similar to all others in that class.

I completely agree, and I was thinking something similar. There is no co-ordination between preservation groups towards representative preservation of the various classes of train, which means that the number of vehicles of a particular class that are preserved ends up completely disproportionate to that particular classes’ significance as a design: Note the disproportionately high number of class 37s, 50s and, I suppose to an extent, Deltics preserved, as well as Bullied Pacifics, when many other classes slipped through the preservation net as preservation groups focused on securing “their” personal favourite loco, a lot of which are now, as you rightly say, rusting away taking up the limited space at preserved railways with little hope of returning to service in the near future.

Both the amount of storage space at preserved railways and money available to support projects is finite, and both should be used sensibly to keep a couple of examples of each loco or vehicle type “railworthy”, rather than having vast platoons of knackered 37s and 50s taking up space that could be better used for other exhibits.

 

[56006]

I agree. You would hope that the NRM see 66001 as historically significant enough for acceptance into the national collection.

Is 66001 really that historically significant though? Yes, I know it was the pioneer of a class that has come to dominate the UK Railfreight scene, but to be fair, is it 66001 that should be saved? Or 59001?

In my opinion, 59001 has more significance due to being the forerunner of the dominating Class 66, since the 66 uses a tried and tested body shell that was clear for use on the UK rail network, and that it was the first of a set of locomotives that were the first to be used privately on BR, that being Foster Yeoman.

Remember, NRM have killed two birds with one stone before with the Class 47. They have a representative of a very successful locomotive and a loco that had been dedicated for use on the Royal Train.

 

[SouthEastern-465]

There not loved by the common rail enthusiast, however I do have a soft spot for them.

Yes once they've been around for a while lets start thinking about it than, as there are plenty around. Although I do not want to see them preserved on the scale Class 37s have!

So my anwser would be yes, but once they've become life expired as its to early now.

 

[ACE1888]

I see where this is coming from, although personally I think it will be a good few years yet before any become available and/or withdrawn, like most things it's down to the personal view of any individuals. The only bug bearer for me is the type that 'hate' 66's for some daft reason, like they 'got rid of my favourite class' because of them...errm No, it's called 'progress' and 'evolution', rather like 'steam v Diesel' debate...and how long has that one been rolling???? Can't say a '66' group would personally interest me, but good luck to those who do!

 

[junglejames]

Only in engine horsepower do class 66s compare unfavourably to class 56s and 58s. Class 66s are superior in both Maximum and Continuous Power Ratings, and in their power at rail (AFAIK), which is what really counts. Train loadings certainly haven’t been reduced since class 66s took over: The HTA coal hopper rakes initially ran in nineteen wagon formations weighing in at 1938t, and have since been extended to twenty one wagons in length, at a total weight of 2142t. This compares to HAA rakes of thirty six wagons at 1800t and forty wagons at 2000t, and the 66s were similarly just as capable at handling the forty wagon HAA coal hopper rakes when they were still in service. The only area where 66s cannot compete is against the heaviest loads handled by 60s, such as the 28 wagon Lindsey to Jarrow oil trains and the Westerleigh to Robeston flows. 66s have successfully replaced class 60s on some of their lighter duties, such as the South Wales to Teesside steel trains, which even then are no stroll in the park in terms of tonnage.

Having one standard fleet of a single locomotive type is always going to be more economical and effective than maintaining smaller fleets of different loco types. DB Schenker are achieving much higher utilisation figures for their 66s than they ever did with the older loco classes: While it has made the UK railway scene boring for enthusiasts, the fact that you hardly see any locos hanging around yards for long periods of time, when in the past there’d be rows of locos on shed, is testament to this fact.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I agree. You would hope that the NRM see 66001 as historically significant enough for acceptance into the national collection.

With the large number of 66s in service in the UK, it is surely inevitable that multiple members of the class will reach preservation with various owners.

Well i stand corrected if this is true. Id always heard they werent capable of hauling the loads that 56s and 58s could.
Their reliability, yes, is an improvement.
But how much of the higher utilisation is down to this, and how much is down to the changing attitudes in the privatised industry? Probably 50-50.
But yes, more reliable, and better in the long term for reducing EWS' costs, you would have thought, significantly.

 

[gedj2]

Evening one and all,

just wanted to say what a great response this post has had, I never expected such a plethora of replies, I'm glad that I have managed to get people talking about it though.

So maybe my next post/question should be, how do you go about setting up a preservation group.

Kind regards,

 

[Rugd1022]

Its got very little to do with replacing pairs of locos, and more to do with their reliable, economical performance. Remember they killed off 56's and 58s, two types of loco that are stronger than a 66.
Im not fully convinced they have had as much of an effect as you claim though. Yes they are probably more reliable than anything they replaced, but how much more reliable? And did this lead to the massive railfreight growth?
Remember both Freightliner and DRS also grew quite a lot, and before their 66s came on scene.

Id say the biggest effect they have had, is, in the long term, reducing EWS' costs, through having a much more simple fleet to maintain.

Yes they are good locos (there is no denying that), but what did they effectively replace? 47s? No, because they also needed 67s before killing them off. 56s or 58s? Nope, not effectively, because they are not as strong as them. All we get now is more frequent, but lighter, trains.

Note im not saying they aren't good, and no doubt in the long term, it has proven to be a very good move by EWS, but Im just wondering if the locos have had as big a say on railfreight growth as claimed, or if they have managed to effectively replace any other loco?
In my mind, they should have been a little bit stronger. But hey, thats me.

Hi JungleJames,

You say "yes they are good locos", but from where I sit I've long thought that they're just not quite good enough. They do a very good job and do just about what is asked of them, but they were 'built to a price', to borrow a phrase often used to describe certain British cars of the 60s and 70s. They are noisy, uncomfortable, draughty and (in my opinion) were put together with little thought for those who have to operate and maintain them. I had 66 951 today on very light train (680 tons, all empty) and considering it's only a few years old, the noise and vibration in the cab was aweful. Ironically, it's one of the later batch with extra soundproofing but felt more like an early '5 series loco! Fair enough, they do put in the mileage day in, day out, but they are going to need a heck of a lot of money spending on them in the not too distant future. The reliability I'd put down to their very simple design, compared to something like a 56 for example, but they should really have been equipped with a bit more grunt to keep pace with other traffic flows, especially on routes with endlessly changing gradient profiles, like the Midland South of Leicester. Desborough Bank is particularly bad with our heaviest train, even with a run up through Market Harborough under greens, with nearly 2,400 tons on you'll be down to about 20mph at the summit.... a bit more grunt would help keep the job rolling along much better, and cause far less (very expensive) delays

They do cope quite well when given a clear road, the problem comes when you're trying to keep the momentum up with a 'bad' loco when following a stopper; if you back off too much you delay any train that's behind you, and if you keep running under double and single yellows, you'll use the brake a lot more and take longer to build your speed back up when the stopper gets a way ahead of you!

Having said all that.... it's certainly not a bad idea to start thinking about a preservation group for them, once they're gone they're gone. I'd join up for a laugh

 

[Hydro]

Well i stand corrected if this is true. Id always heard they werent capable of hauling the loads that 56s and 58s could.

Didn't the 58's have some trouble actually putting their power down? Plenty of grunt but prone to slipping, I've heard. The final one, 58050(?) trialled the SEPEX traction kit that went on the 60's and there was a marked improvement in it's abilities apparently.

 

[mumrar]

Well, to compare the three in terms of maximum tractive effort Class 56-277kN, Class 58-275kN and Class 66-409kN. So they're an improvement of 47%. The continuous maximum for the standard Class 66s is just 15-17kN shy of those maximum tractive effort figures. Don't forget the 65mph Class 66/6s which put out a maximum of 467kN.

Granted they're not perfect but they are also very capable locos too and their reliabilty is the key to their success.

 

[66526]

I think overall they seem to be a pretty decent, solid loco! 526 should obviously be one of the ones that gets preserved!...

 

[GearJammer]

Maybe 59001 & 66001 should be preserved at the NRM?
If space was no object at the NRM i would preserve Foster Yeomans Switcher/shunter, it would be good to have an american loco there, it could have 59001 next to it and alongside that one of the 66's from either EWS or Freightliner that were exported, the 3 loco's could show the story of american traction and how it came to the UK and then spread accross europe?

Why should 66526 be preserved?

 

[66526]

Just a personal opinion, it's named after my Dad