Class 68 Progress, what's the latest?

[Sunbird24]

Up to 70-80 locos per year is their average, but not sure if that includes tram units or not. Still time for another 45-55 this year, its just a question of what order they are in, they could be scheduled behind the 4000s and another of those was outside this morning in plain white so they might appear later this month. Some may have appeared already and gone back inside. There are 20 or more individual bays where they can go inside for finishing tasks after coming off the production line as well as being worked on outside. Because I have not seen any does not necessarily mean they have not appeared, just they have not been visible when I have gone past. When things move they sometimes move fast. For example, on 29th late afternoon 68025 was in the yard with no transport in sight, yet the next day it had left Sagunto in the hold of the Eendracht! I only visit about once a week on average at most, sometimes less, so I probably miss a lot more than I see!

 

[ChrisHogan]

I can't confess to witnessing any problems with the Chiltern loco-hauled turns, beyond the well-publicised fire on a 68, as an occasional user of the trains, however. The set on the 15:55 is always waiting to depart as regular as clockwork when I see it on a daily basis, too, except when services have been disrupted due to infrastructure problems.

We seem to get a bad failure nearly every month on the Snow Hill lines with the Chiltern Silver Trains, the last was the 1615 ex London that failed at Langley Green about a month ago and caused chaos until it could detrain and limp into Rowley Regis loop. Doors on the MkIIIs and brake drag seem to be the main problems. Other problems centre on the 60 second station stops that are almost impossible to maintain, particularly if the guard takes 20 seconds to check that the platform hasn't moved!

 

[MainlineD]

Ah I see. So, from what you in are saying in the previous post, does that mean those dates (quoted above) from DRS are looking unlikely ?.

The current status should be that delivery of the third batch of 68s (68026-032) will commence later this year (expect autumn 2016), before that will happen a Class 88 loco (most likely 88001) will arrive in the UK. The remaining 88s will be delivered after the third batch of 68s.

 

[Sunbird24]

I understand the newly arrived class 68s are now being named.
Can someone please post the new names here when they appear, preferably with pictures.
Still no sign of any more UK locos in Valencia. looks like the VFLI Euro 4000s (6 ordered) are next in line to appear, one in red and another in white have appeared recently, as have more PrasaDuals. More Sheffield tram-trains appearing also.

 

[Aws87024]

I understand the newly arrived class 68s are now being named.
Can someone please post the new names here when they appear, preferably with pictures.
Still no sign of any more UK locos in Valencia. looks like the VFLI Euro 4000s (6 ordered) are next in line to appear, one in red and another in white have appeared recently, as have more PrasaDuals. More Sheffield tram-trains appearing also.

WNXX reporting that 68020 and 68021 have been named as Reliance and Tireless respectively.

 

[CosherB]

WNXX reporting that 68020 and 68021 have been named as Reliance and Tireless respectively.

WNXX also 'speculating' that there will be more than the current batch of 32 of the class to be ordered by DRS. Are they looking to also displace the 57/3s as well as all the 47s?

 

[DarloRich]

WNXX also 'speculating' that there will be more than the current batch of 32 of the class to be ordered by DRS. Are they looking to also displace the 57/3s as well as all the 47s?

a more uniform, modern fleet? I can see why DRS might want that!

 

[childwallblues]

a more uniform, modern fleet? I can see why DRS might want that!

All of the 47s are out of service.

 

[DarloRich]

All of the 47s are out of service.

but not he 57's which was part of the quoted post.

 

[Sunbird24]

WNXX also 'speculating' that there will be more than the current batch of 32 of the class to be ordered by DRS. Are they looking to also displace the 57/3s as well as all the 47s?

The original options on the order were for 40+ locomotives, the limiting factor being the availability of cat IIIA compliant engines by a deadline which has now passed. (But how often do deadlines get extended, or loopholes get found?)
The alternative is a redesigned cat IIIB compliant engine package which would fit into the already cramped available space. This might result in a reduction of engine power but a freight-only option with a 3200HP engine would give the same tractive power as now. This could still be used on passenger push-pull operations where the DVT is fitted with the package for supplying train power, although this will add extra costs.
A similar system has been in use for many years now in Malaysia where a Power Generator Car (PGC) supplies all the train power allowing freight only locomotives to haul passenger trains.
Some smaller units were devised for local commuter services to allow freight locomotives to haul non-powered EMU vehicles, sometimes complete EMU sets, during stock shortages caused by an inability to get replacement parts for traction motors etc.

 

[Emblematic]

The original options on the order were for 40+ locomotives, the limiting factor being the availability of cat IIIA compliant engines by a deadline which has now passed. (But how often do deadlines get extended, or loopholes get found?)
The alternative is a redesigned cat IIIB compliant engine package which would fit into the already cramped available space. This might result in a reduction of engine power but a freight-only option with a 3200HP engine would give the same tractive power as now. This could still be used on passenger push-pull operations where the DVT is fitted with the package for supplying train power, although this will add extra costs.
A similar system has been in use for many years now in Malaysia where a Power Generator Car (PGC) supplies all the train power allowing freight only locomotives to haul passenger trains.
Some smaller units were devised for local commuter services to allow freight locomotives to haul non-powered EMU vehicles, sometimes complete EMU sets, during stock shortages caused by an inability to get replacement parts for traction motors etc.

Interesting you mention that. I came across a technical document recently, authored by Ricardo and TRL in 2012 for the DfT, regarding GB rail power train efficiency. This states:

...one freight operator - Direct Rail Services (DRS) - has placed an order for 15 Vossloh EuroLight UK mixed traffic diesel-electric locomotives, which are fitted with a stage IIIB compliant 3,750hp Caterpillar C175 engine.

That would explain how the numbers and dates specified for the IIIB transition have been exceeded, without any loopholes or concessions needed.
The document also states that the Class 70 (which is given more detailed coverage) was supplied as a IIIA compliant model, and a future IIIB compliant version would require the deletion of the auxiliary engine, so overall could well be less environmentally friendly than the IIIA models.
Given the nature of the document, and the industry standing of the authors, I'd be very surprised if this information was incorrect (unlike anything read in the press, which could well be semi-informed supposition.) The report is available online here, the relevant section is on page 99.

 

[Sunbird24]

The basic engine itself may be IIIB compliant but the exhaust system is not. For that to be compliant it needs a further 6 filters, each the size of a 50-gallon dustbin and that is where the problem lies, there is not that much room available.
More here: http://www.railengineer.uk/2014/04/01/sleek-lines/

 

[DarloRich]

Interesting you mention that. I came across a technical document recently, authored by Ricardo and TRL in 2012 for the DfT, regarding GB rail power train efficiency. This states:

That would explain how the numbers and dates specified for the IIIB transition have been exceeded, without any loopholes or concessions needed.
The document also states that the Class 70 (which is given more detailed coverage) was supplied as a IIIA compliant model, and a future IIIB compliant version would require the deletion of the auxiliary engine, so overall could well be less environmentally friendly than the IIIA models.
Given the nature of the document, and the industry standing of the authors, I'd be very surprised if this information was incorrect (unlike anything read in the press, which could well be semi-informed supposition.) The report is available online here, the relevant section is on page 99.

Do we not have the ordering date loop hole anymore? IE order the engine and have it built before the deadline and then install it into the box whenever needed?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Do we not have the ordering date loop hole anymore? IE order the engine and have it built before the deadline and then install it into the box whenever needed?

If I recall correctly, said engine would need to have been built and delivered to somewhere within the EU before 23.59:59 on 31st December 2015.

 

[Emblematic]

If I recall correctly, said engine would need to have been built and delivered to somewhere within the EU before 23.59:59 on 31st December 2015.

Indeed, plus a maximum number per manufacturer during transition, 16 pan-EU plus an additional 10 for UK only. I've been trying to reconcile the numbers thanks to Sunbird24's helpful link, and after a bit of research I'm still not clear on the 68s:

Progress Rail 66s: 26 new units + 2 using recovered engines; 3 new engines shipped back to US for inclusion in locomotives having been registered prior to deadline. All good, maximum number made.

GE Powerhaul: 20 class 70 prior to 2012 (1 dropped in transit and returned.) 10 class 70 built in transition period plus several units for EU, but not close to the maximum. 20 IIIB compliant locos shipped to EU since.

Vossloh\Stadler Spain: Confusion! As as I can tell, the first 15 68s were probably ordered just before transition, but not announced until later. The next 10 are definitely transition units, and as far as I can work out, so are 14 Euro 4000 units sent to France. So that's the allowance nearly used up, and maybe the 68s will be IIIB compliant from now on. Or maybe not! The Euro 4000 is based on the EMD 710, that the manufacturer no longer sells to the EU and US markets in it's own locos such as the 66, as they cannot make it IIIB compliant. Yet orders are still being announced such as this one and even this one yesterday. Stadler's site still describes the 4000 as EMD 710, IIIA so something isn't right. Maybe the rules are different in France, or maybe the 4000 has had a different engine fitted at some point and we've not been told :roll:

 

[Sunbird24]

The change between IIIA and IIIB is mainly in the exhaust system with only small changes to the engine itself. The problem for all UK locos on the national network is space to fit the new equipment. This is not an issue on the 3000 and 4000 series or even the Eurolight as they are much larger, mostly in height, but plenty of extra space to play with.
That said, I don't know for certain whether the new orders are to be IIIA or IIIB compliant. The ruling is only that the new engines which are only IIIA compliant only have to registered within the EU by the compliance date, the locomotives to which they will be fitted can still be built later. Just as there were at least 17 engines already registered which are now being fitted to new-build 68s so there may be still be more IIIA engines registered already which can continue to be fitted to newly ordered Euro 4000s.
There are several AFRO4000 locomotives still at the factory with 'old' but unused engines....who knows....
The 68 would need a major redesign to keep within the UK loading gauge, not just where to put all the extra equipment but to get the weight distribution within limits. Things like body size and wheelbase cannot be altered without affecting route availability.

 

[childwallblues]

Travelled on the Fife Circle on Tuesday behind both 68003 and 68017.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Does that mean that some identical (or near identical) stage IIIA engines to those fitted to 68s exist in European locos a few years old. Could the 68s not take those second hand engines registered before the deadline (31/12/2015 iirc) . The donor European locos could then have a nice shiny new stage IIIB compliant engine. The only difference really being the extra exhaust bits that I hope fit in a European gauge loco anyway. Or am I getting all confused ? .

 

[furnessvale]

Does that mean that some identical (or near identical) stage IIIA engines to those fitted to 68s exist in European locos a few years old. Could the 68s not take those second hand engines registered before the deadline (31/12/2015 iirc) . The donor European locos could then have a nice shiny new stage IIIB compliant engine. The only difference really being the extra exhaust bits that I hope fit in a European gauge loco anyway. Or am I getting all confused ? .

In a similar vein, if freight traffic ever picks up enough in the UK, I have wondered about repatriating 66s, and even purchasing ones built new for Europe.

This would alleviate our loading gauge problem in the short to medium term.

Of course it would cost us, as European operators would have to buy new locos to replace what we take.

 

[Emblematic]

The change between IIIA and IIIB is mainly in the exhaust system with only small changes to the engine itself. The problem for all UK locos on the national network is space to fit the new equipment. This is not an issue on the 3000 and 4000 series or even the Eurolight as they are much larger, mostly in height, but plenty of extra space to play with.
That said, I don't know for certain whether the new orders are to be IIIA or IIIB compliant. The ruling is only that the new engines which are only IIIA compliant only have to registered within the EU by the compliance date, the locomotives to which they will be fitted can still be built later. Just as there were at least 17 engines already registered which are now being fitted to new-build 68s so there may be still be more IIIA engines registered already which can continue to be fitted to newly ordered Euro 4000s.
There are several AFRO4000 locomotives still at the factory with 'old' but unused engines....who knows....
The 68 would need a major redesign to keep within the UK loading gauge, not just where to put all the extra equipment but to get the weight distribution within limits. Things like body size and wheelbase cannot be altered without affecting route availability.

Yep, it's the numbers I can't figure. Unless something is actually IIIB which we thought was IIIA, or a lot of these orders were pre-2012 and don't count towards the 26 total, I can't figure it out. But then I can't figure out how they are still announcing orders for delivery next year for a loco which still seems to be IIIA - the transition period only allowed two years for orders and deliveries. I can understand if the orders were for Latin America or Africa, but France?

Does that mean that some identical (or near identical) stage IIIA engines to those fitted to 68s exist in European locos a few years old. Could the 68s not take those second hand engines registered before the deadline (31/12/2015 iirc) . The donor European locos could then have a nice shiny new stage IIIB compliant engine. The only difference really being the extra exhaust bits that I hope fit in a European gauge loco anyway. Or am I getting all confused ? .

Apologies if my confusion is spreading! Unfortunately there aren't many locos in Europe that have a Caterpillar C175-16 engine, but if there are any, you could use them as you describe. You could also use any of the engines in registered European locomotives to build new UK locos - so EMD 12N-710s from Euro 3000s could be used to build new 66s or 67s, in theory (subject to crashworthiness and other regs of course) same as the extra two 66s reused engines from written-off classmates. And you can still fit IIIA engines into old (i.e. IIIA or earlier) locomotives, hence the popularity of re-engine projects. I think the flexibility scheme deadline was 31/12/2014, btw, that's when the EMD engines were rushed over.

In a similar vein, if freight traffic ever picks up enough in the UK, I have wondered about repatriating 66s, and even purchasing ones built new for Europe.

This would alleviate our loading gauge problem in the short to medium term.

Of course it would cost us, as European operators would have to buy new locos to replace what we take.

Yes, that would work, the regulations are across the EU as a whole. Of course the 'extra 10' locomotives which were part of the UK-only allowance can't now be exported to the EU. I assume they must be identifiable in some way.

 

[Sunbird24]

OK, simple answer for the next batch of 68s, take everything out of the No 2 cab and put the extra Cat IIIB equipment in there and give them to the push-pull operators who use a DVT at the other end. They don't need 2 cabs, just a convenient triangle to turn the whole train to even out wear.
Since Cat own EMD and have stopped production of EMD engines they should already have their own replacement to offer for any new orders.

 

[Peter Sarf]

OK, simple answer for the next batch of 68s, take everything out of the No 2 cab and put the extra Cat IIIB equipment in there and give them to the push-pull operators who use a DVT at the other end. They don't need 2 cabs, just a convenient triangle to turn the whole train to even out wear.
Since Cat own EMD and have stopped production of EMD engines they should already have their own replacement to offer for any new orders.

Brilliant idea and so I feel the birth of a second generation HST coming on .

 

[ash39]

OK, simple answer for the next batch of 68s, take everything out of the No 2 cab and put the extra Cat IIIB equipment in there and give them to the push-pull operators who use a DVT at the other end. They don't need 2 cabs, just a convenient triangle to turn the whole train to even out wear.
Since Cat own EMD and have stopped production of EMD engines they should already have their own replacement to offer for any new orders.

Don't even need a triangle really, plenty of push-pull sets already in operation in the UK that never run in reverse formation and I don't think it's an issue. If you had a route with tight curves then maybe.

I can't see it happening though, it'd require a fairly comprehensive redesign of the loco - I doubt it's as simple as putting the equipment in the cab and plating the doors over! Also it greatly reduces the usefulness and flexibility of the loco for other duties later in its design life.

 

[jopsuk]

Quite. The likes of GWR, Chiltern, VTWC, EMT, VTEC and AGA never deliberately reverse their HSTs/mark 3 sets/pendolinos/Meridians & HSTs/HSTs & Mark 4 sets/Mark 3 sets and if they do end up reversed use what triangles they do have to sort them ASAP.

 

[MCR247]

Quite. The likes of GWR, Chiltern, VTWC, EMT, VTEC and AGA never deliberately reverse their HSTs/mark 3 sets/pendolinos/Meridians & HSTs/HSTs & Mark 4 sets/Mark 3 sets and if they do end up reversed use what triangles they do have to sort them ASAP.

EMT ones don't really have a set direction IME as so many go via Nottingham on their way to/from Neville hill

 

[59CosG95]

68023 has ben named "Achilles", and 024 "Centaur".

 

[gimmea50anyday]

They seem to like these class 50 names......
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
VTEC often use Newcastle where a set needs turning or leeds is also a possibility although that would require missing Wakefield Westgate if on a passenger service and can currently only be done with HST's.

VWC use Birmingham and Glasgow to turn sets. Theoretically Manchester Airport could also be used to turn trains although an 11 car pendo rake would be out of the question. SWT used to use Fareham and Eastleigh to turn the Lymington Flyers around, this is one of those rare occasions where they had to in order to even out wheel and flange wear. There are bound to be other locations across the network.

 

[Sunbird24]

Don't even need a triangle really, plenty of push-pull sets already in operation in the UK that never run in reverse formation and I don't think it's an issue. If you had a route with tight curves then maybe.

I can't see it happening though, it'd require a fairly comprehensive redesign of the loco - I doubt it's as simple as putting the equipment in the cab and plating the doors over! Also it greatly reduces the usefulness and flexibility of the loco for other duties later in its design life.

They are going to need a major redesign anyway as a IIIB will not fit as it is, it needs a lot more space which does not exist. There is a limit to what can be fitted into the UK loading gauge, this limit has been passed and something has to go.

 

[Johnnie2Sheds]

I'm sorry, but is anyone else reading this with incredulity? This locomotive type has been designed with one engine in mind, and from what I see seems to work rather well. So, if I've got it right, for the last half dozen units, a complete redesign of the engine room will have to be undertaken? At what cost? Or brand new locos will have to have secondhand engines? Is there no such thing as commonsense anymore? Bonkers.

 

[Sunbird24]

I'm sorry, but is anyone else reading this with incredulity? This locomotive type has been designed with one engine in mind, and from what I see seems to work rather well. So, if I've got it right, for the last half dozen units, a complete redesign of the engine room will have to be undertaken? At what cost? Or brand new locos will have to have secondhand engines? Is there no such thing as commonsense anymore? Bonkers.

It's the people who changed the rules in a time frame which is incompatible with the length of time it takes to design, test and produce a very complex piece of machinery, who are bonkers. Next thing we know these same people will be telling us that we have to reduce the emissions of all new jet engines by 80% by the the end of 2019. We all know that is impossible. Currently the designers are working on a way to make this emission filter a lot smaller. The new rules had likely not even been thought of when design work for the first Eurolight and its engines started some 15 years ago. The finished product which first appeared in 2010 was still too big for UK, Asian and African markets, though smaller than the Euro 3000 which it was derived from. The body had to be lengthened in order to get everything into the UK loading gauge profile, but then the rules were changed, so by the time it was getting into production hopes to sell hundreds, if not thousands have been dashed. Not a problem in the USA and mainland Europe but a huge problem for UK, Asia and Africa, and for Vossloh/Stadler who already have a huge order from South Africa which is now causing problems (partly due to incompetence in Africa but that is another story).
BTW, the next 7 units will still be standard IIIA. There have now been reports of a further order, which is what sparked these latest comments.