Class 68 Progress, what's the latest?

[Photohunter71]

Just wondering what are the latest reports or updates on the progress of the class 68's? I know they have been registered on TOPS.

 

[Loki]

Apparently there could be some news on the 17th of August.

 

[Photohunter71]

Thanks for the link,looks promising!

 

[D365]

Might the "DRS fleet update" thread be of some relevance, including this post.

 

[cj_1985]

i don't actually know anything fact wise...
but based on what has been published in the likes of tRM, RE, RI RH etc... I would guess that the first of the 68s must be close to completion, if not already complete and undergoing static testing...before being shipped to the Siemens test track... which is expected to be by/in the autumn.

 

[Loki]

Minor news for those that missed it:

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/talking-technology-for-uklight-locomotives.html

 

[159220]

Apparently there could be some news on the 17th of August.

What was the news about the Class 68s on Saturday? I cannot find anything online...

 

[Beveridges]

DRS open day for those who went

 

[Boothby97]

The latest news update on WNXX (which I realise is a subscription site) had some information,
68001 - nearly complete, should undergone extensive testing first
68002 - due late Autumn
And, there could be as many as 41 locomotives arriving.

 

[Beveridges]

Why so many?
Are DRS going to replace their entire fleet?

 

[cj_1985]

Why so many?
Are DRS going to replace their entire fleet?

dunno, maybe they are looking towards a "common" loco type for its intermodal, passenger and thunderbird work. leaving its 20, 37, 47, and 57 fleets for use on Nuclear flask trains, RHTT, Infrastructure and other duties... and releasing class 66s to other operators

or, that number could include the rumoured/proposed AC loco version of the "UK Light"

 

[Beveridges]

It would make sense to have a "common" loco for the flasks & other 'ultra light weight' work, maintaining five different classes just for this sort of work (which any loco could do easily) is madness. Maybe they will stick to 37's as they are the most numerous, and bin the rest.

This would leave 68's for the heavy work.

 

[Class 92]

Or use the rest for railtours?

 

[daikilo]

Why so many?
Are DRS going to replace their entire fleet?

Anyone any idea what the track access charge will be for a 68 compared to say a 66 or a 47?

 

[jopsuk]

I'd suspect the cutter's torch may be the fate for the menagerie. The last 20s and 47s were built 45 years ago. The 37s are older. Enthusiasts may love the variety, and I dare say many of the staff- fitters, drivers and probably some of the pen pushers too- like it as well, but the bean counters will love the idea of a rationalised, modern and efficient fleet. Nostalgia doesn't make profits in the freight business.

 

[Beveridges]

may love the variety, and I dare say many of the staff- fitters, drivers and probably some of the pen pushers too- like it as well

It is well known that some enthusiast Drivers move to DRS for the traction. Some would probably be quick to leave if the 68's took over the lot.

the bean counters will love the idea of a rationalised, modern and efficient fleet. Nostalgia doesn't make profits in the freight business.

DRS specialise in the sort of work which is extremely undemanding yet requires two locos. Nuclear flasks, test trains, RHTT/Sandite, inspection saloons, low level waste, you name any work of this sort & DRS seem to have got the lot. Using two 68's must be expensive for this slow, lightweight, double headed work which *any* loco could easily do. I think for this reason the old stuff will be around for a while yet. What I bet we will see is the old fleet standardised to just one class (probably 37) instead of the current 4 classes, and 68's on everything else.

 

[jopsuk]

Or maybe the next ove after the 68s is a new "superlight"

 

[Boothby97]

I suppose its the case of wait and see, but replace the 20s and 66s, and some 37s and 47s may be the case.

 

[Photohunter71]

Good to note! I thought the order was for 15 initially with the option for more if required? I can't see the 37's and 66's being binned for a fleet of 41 68's? Possibly the 47's and 57's will be sent to the scrap merchant.What I can see is the entire fleet of 57's being binned as they were only a stop gap until something akin to the 68's are on our tracks.I reckon it's only a matter of time until there's a tag on order for other TOC's for the class.

 

[cj_1985]

Its worth remembering that the class 68s , despite being expected to be very versatile, are still an unproven loco...

Remember that the class 70s at one point were thought to eventually replace class 66s and probably end up with more of the 70 in the FL fleet than 66s... but they too were an unproven loco with an unproven (for rail use) engine... and they have not exactly set the world on fire , despite their best literal efforts, reliability wise.

I genuinely be live its a case of wait and see, just as Boothby97 said... all will no doubt be revealed over the next year.

But if we are talking about what would be replaced ... I would expect the 66s, 57/0s and maybe a few 47s to get sold, returned to the ROSCO or scrapped. Much as I hate to admit it, the 37s are too useful... they can go almost anywhere... so are good for infrastructure and test train jobs... the 20s while old... are ideal for RHTT services and the odd flask train, I could see that they could probably get sold/scrapped if DRS did want to get rid of its smaller less versatile loco groups.

 

[Photohunter71]

That's a good point,however I'm positive the caterpillar engine will not randomly burst into flames at the least bit opportunity as per the cl 70's! GE engines aren't that reliable,I don't recall the 66's suddenly going on fire.However I do feel that beside the cl 68's there will be one or two new build diesels hauling freight on our tracks to compliment the re-engineered 60's and what remains of the 66's and older fleet stock.I'm sure I have heard that DBS want Vossloh and Voith locos in their UK fleet.

 

[Beveridges]

Does DB have the traffic to require any new locos ?

You look at the marshalling yards today (eg Warrington Arpley) that used to be busy 10 years ago they are now so quiet you could mistakenly think they have closed down!

 

[Loki]

Does DB have the traffic to require any new locos ?

You look at the marshalling yards today (eg Warrington Arpley) that used to be busy 10 years ago they are now so quiet you could mistakenly think they have closed down!

DB are to operate freight from London Gateway and predict at least 4 trains per day for a start (4 in , 4 out):
http://www.rail.dbschenker.co.uk/cmsnews/news_article.asp?guid={F3A85387-9504-43E1-8126-25C68DC4CBFC}

Network Rail expect the number to rise to 50!
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...ion responses/d/dp world - london gateway.pdf

So who knows?

 

[D365]

DB are to operate freight from London Gateway and predict at least 4 trains per day for a start (4 in , 4 out):
http://www.rail.dbschenker.co.uk/cmsnews/news_article.asp?guid={F3A85387-9504-43E1-8126-25C68DC4CBFC}

Network Rail expect the number to rise to 50!
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...ion responses/d/dp world - london gateway.pdf

So who knows?

DBS do have a sizeable number of 60s in store... Oh wait.

dunno, maybe they are looking towards a "common" loco type for its intermodal, passenger and thunderbird work. leaving its 20, 37, 47, and 57 fleets for use on Nuclear flask trains, RHTT, Infrastructure and other duties... and releasing class 66s to other operators

You'd want to rationalise on the older fleet, of course, as explained earlier.

Completely random thought, but would a possibility be installing a smaller, secondary engine in a 68-type locomotive? The second one could be used for nuclear flasks, RHTT and light tasks with the larger engine providing redundancy. Don't know if this is at all feasible though, just an idea.

 

[SprinterMan]

DBS do have a sizeable number of 60s in store... Oh wait.



You'd want to rationalise on the older fleet, of course, as explained earlier.

Completely random thought, but would a possibility be installing a smaller, secondary engine in a 68-type locomotive? The second one could be used for nuclear flasks, RHTT and light tasks with the larger engine providing redundancy. Don't know if this is at all feasible though, just an idea.

Surely they could just use the same engine but only use one bank of it, like the MTU engines in HSTs do when idling for a long time. Hauling around 2 engines all the time seems mournfully inefficient.

Adam

 

[D365]

Surely they could just use the same engine but only use one bank of it, like the MTU engines in HSTs do when idling for a long time. Hauling around 2 engines all the time seems mournfully inefficient.

Adam

Aside from the poor visibility when driving nose-first on a Class 20 (which is why they are typically coupled nose-to-nose), two locomotives have to be used on those light tasks so that if one fails, it doesn't leave radioactive items dumped in the middle of nowhere/somewhere - imagine that...

I suppose it would be tricky to fit even a small secondary engine - it would require all the ancillary devices to be duplicated in order to achieve true redundancy, and there's hardly going to be enough space.

 

[SprinterMan]

Aside from the poor visibility when driving nose-first on a Class 20 (which is why they are typically coupled nose-to-nose), two locomotives have to be used on those light tasks so that if one fails, it doesn't leave radioactive items dumped in the middle of nowhere/somewhere - imagine that...

I suppose it would be tricky to fit even a small secondary engine - it would require all the ancillary devices to be duplicated in order to achieve true redundancy, and there's hardly going to be enough space.

No, I mean they could use 2x68s to replace the 2x20s if they wanted, but only use one bank of the engines in the 68s to save fuel.

Adam

 

[D365]

No, I mean they could use 2x68s to replace the 2x20s if they wanted, but only use one bank of the engines in the 68s to save fuel.

Adam

They could, but the secondary engine was just a thought I had. Excuse me.

 

[Beveridges]

No, I mean they could use 2x68s to replace the 2x20s if they wanted, but only use one bank of the engines in the 68s to save fuel

Are DRS leasing the 68's as they currently are with the 66's, or will they own them like they do with the classes 20 to 57's ?

If they are leasing these 68's it will be a very expensive way to use two of them for what they will be paying.

 

[Monty]

Leased to my knowledge, ordered by Beacon Rail on behalf of DRS.