GB Railfreight in 'locomotive acquisition' talks

[Grannyjoans]

It's what power it puts down on the rail that matters and 60's have a little more in this respect. Class 66 locos are as powerful as a class 58 but substantially more than both at the rail.

Yes a 66 has substantially more power at rail than a 58/60 - according to wikipedia etc.

The difference in power between a 58 and 60 is so small it is negligible however. The 58 has slightly more maximum horsepower, but the 60 has slightly more power at rail.

 

[randyrippley]

It's what power it puts down on the rail that matters and 60's have a little more in this respect. Class 66 locos are as powerful as a class 58 but substantially more than both at the rail.

66 more powerful than a 58 or 60?
Are you sure about that?

 

[Cowley]

Yes a 66 has substantially more power at rail than a 58/60 - according to wikipedia etc.

The difference in power between a 58 and 60 is so small it is negligible however. The 58 has slightly more maximum horsepower, but the 60 has slightly more power at rail.

The 60 has a lot more available power than a 58 and also more ability to start heavy loads than a 66. They’re not called Tugs for nothing.
Ask a few people that drive 60s, they’ll tell you how much they can shift weightwise.
On paper/Wikipedia isn’t the same as out on the road as it were.

 

[HSTEd]

A class 60 is designed for only one purpose - shifting very heavy trains.
It is enormously heavy to ensure this is possible.

 

[Jonny]

A class 60 is designed for only one purpose - shifting very heavy trains.
It is enormously heavy to ensure this is possible.

I presume you mean that the heavy axle load ensures very high maximum possible traction... That is true, but there also has to be enough rotational force supplied to the axles to get the wheels turning.

I wonder, are GBRf after a companion for 59003 ?

 

[HSTEd]

I presume you mean that the heavy axle load ensures very high maximum possible traction... That is true, but there also has to be enough rotational force supplied to the axles to get the wheels turning.

Most electric transmissions are capable of generating enough starting torque to spin the wheels - in fact the horsepower per unit torque on American diesels has been shrinking since the start of the diesel era

 

[Grannyjoans]

66 more powerful than a 58 or 60?
Are you sure about that?

Engine horsepower - 58 and 66 are both the highest, followed closely by the 60.
Power at rail - 66 is by far the highest, followed by 60 then very closely behind the 58.
Gearing ratio - 58 is the highest, followed by 66 then 60. (higher gear ratio means a faster loco but with a lower starting tractive effort, so the 58 is fastest at hauling lighter loads, but will not be as good as a 60 at hauling a heavier load at low speeds)

So performance wise, it is probably a mix of those 3 things.

 

[Far north 37]

Engine horsepower - 58 and 66 are both the highest, followed closely by the 60.
Power at rail - 66 is by far the highest, followed by 60 then very closely behind the 58.
Gearing ratio - 58 is the highest, followed by 66 then 60. (Lower is better)

So performance wise, it is probably a mix of those 3 things.

Im afraid your wrong here the class 60 is 3320 hp a 66 is 3300 so the 60 is higher the class 60 has a far higher tractive effort about 470kn to a 66s 406kn tractive effort which gives it far more power at the rail.

Honestly if 66s were more powerful than 60s why have dbs had to majorly refurbish a fleet to work trains that 66s cant they are getting rid off far newer 66s more recently and still retaining a fleet of 60s if 66s were far more powerful as you claim why are they been sold off and 60s kept on the figures on wikipedia are not reflecting the truth.

There is a video of a class 66 66175 i think unable to start the murco tanks which 60s have hauled easily for years they had to use two 66s on this train at one point till they gave up and it went back to being 60 hauled so the claim that 66s have by far the highest power at rail is totally wrong its been to be honest the 60s have always been known as the heavy haulers of db cargos fleet along with the class 59s

 

[Rail Blues]

Im afraid your wrong here the class 60 is 3320 hp a 66 is 3300 so the 60 is higher the class 60 has a far higher tractive effort about 470kn to a 66s 406kn tractive effort which gives it far more power at the rail.

Honestly if 66s were more powerful than 60s why have dbs had to majorly refurbish a fleet to work trains that 66s cant they are getting rid off far newer 66s more recently and still retaining a fleet of 60s if 66s were far more powerful as you claim why are they been sold off and 60s kept on the figures on wikipedia are not reflecting the truth.

There is a video of a class 66 66175 i think unable to start the murco tanks which 60s have hauled easily for years they had to use two 66s on this train at one point till they gave up and it went back to being 60 hauled so the claim that 66s have by far the highest power at rail is totally wrong its been to be honest the 60s have always been known as the heavy haulers of db cargos fleet along with the class 59s

Granny Jones claims to be a driver with Northern. Even though he might not have driven freight locos, you'd have thought he'd know that a 60 was significantly more powerful than a 66

 

[Ash Bridge]

Granny Jones claims to be a driver with Northern. Even though he might not have driven freight locos, you'd have thought he'd know that a 60 was significantly more powerful than a 66

Well I don't think it's that the 60 is actually significantly more powerful than the 66 or indeed a 59, more to do with the fact that it is equipped with a rather more refined traction control system plus geared somewhat lower than the GM offerings?

 

[Roast Veg]

The gearing probably makes quite an impact too - weren't a round of 66s geared low (60mph max) for heavy loads?

 

[Ash Bridge]

The gearing probably makes quite an impact too - weren't a round of 66s geared low (60mph max) for heavy loads?

I think it may be 65mph, still no match for a 60 though!

 

[Harbornite]

To dispel some of the wibble about 60s having less power at rail than a 66, here's some stats for some of the UK's type 5 freight locos. The Horsepower figure is engine output, the figure in brackets is continuous tractive effort (where given) and the other figure is max tractive effort:

Class 58- 3300 hp, 61,800lb
Class 59- 3000 hp, 122,000lb
Class 60- 3100 hp, 106,500lb
Class 66/0- 3300 hp, 92,100lb (58,390lb)
Class 66/6- 3300 hp, 105,080lb (66,630lb)
Class 70- 3686 hp, 122,100lb (98,000lb)

All of the above are Co-cos. It seems obvious that the Class 60 has more power at rail than standard 66s, but this comes at the price of a lower top speed of 60mph. The 66/6s are geared for 65 mph top speed (10mph less than standards 66s)

 

[Cowley]

To dispel some of the wibble about 60s having less power at rail than a 66, here's some stats for some of the UK's type 5 freight locos. The Horsepower figure is engine output, the figure in brackets is continuous tractive effort (where given) and the other figure is max tractive effort:

Class 58- 3300 hp, 61,800lb
Class 59- 3000 hp, 122,000lb
Class 60- 3100 hp, 106,500lb
Class 66/0- 3300 hp, 92,100lb (58,390lb)
Class 66/6- 3300 hp, 105,080lb (66,630lb)
Class 70- 3686 hp, 122,100lb (98,000lb)

All of the above are Co-cos. It seems obvious that the Class 60 has more power at rail than standard 66s, but this comes at the price of a lower top speed of 60mph. The 66/6s are geared for 65 mph top speed (10mph less than standards 66s)

Great stats Harbonite. Pretty much backs up what’s being said here, thanks for that.

 

[50039]

To dispel some of the wibble about 60s having less power at rail than a 66, here's some stats for some of the UK's type 5 freight locos. The Horsepower figure is engine output, the figure in brackets is continuous tractive effort (where given) and the other figure is max tractive effort:

Class 58- 3300 hp, 61,800lb
Class 59- 3000 hp, 122,000lb
Class 60- 3100 hp, 106,500lb
Class 66/0- 3300 hp, 92,100lb (58,390lb)
Class 66/6- 3300 hp, 105,080lb (66,630lb)
Class 70- 3686 hp, 122,100lb (98,000lb)

All of the above are Co-cos. It seems obvious that the Class 60 has more power at rail than standard 66s, but this comes at the price of a lower top speed of 60mph. The 66/6s are geared for 65 mph top speed (10mph less than standards 66s)

So the 70s are the daddies.... how have GBRf got on with testing the Colas one they borrowed?

 

[james60059]

The gearing probably makes quite an impact too - weren't a round of 66s geared low (60mph max) for heavy loads?

Freightliner's Class 66/6's

 

[Photohunter71]

Wouldn't they be better off opting for new build?

 

[randyrippley]

To dispel some of the wibble about 60s having less power at rail than a 66, here's some stats for some of the UK's type 5 freight locos. The Horsepower figure is engine output, the figure in brackets is continuous tractive effort (where given) and the other figure is max tractive effort:

Class 58- 3300 hp, 61,800lb
Class 59- 3000 hp, 122,000lb
Class 60- 3100 hp, 106,500lb
Class 66/0- 3300 hp, 92,100lb (58,390lb)
Class 66/6- 3300 hp, 105,080lb (66,630lb)
Class 70- 3686 hp, 122,100lb (98,000lb)

All of the above are Co-cos. It seems obvious that the Class 60 has more power at rail than standard 66s, but this comes at the price of a lower top speed of 60mph. The 66/6s are geared for 65 mph top speed (10mph less than standards 66s)

Interesting to compare these with Kestrel:
4000hp, 100,000lb maximum
Kestrel weighed around 135t, a class 70 129t.
Difference is that Kestrel was geared for 110mph. Would have been interesting to see what it could have done with 60mph gearing

 

[Harbon 1]

Im afraid your wrong here the class 60 is 3320 hp a 66 is 3300 so the 60 is higher the class 60 has a far higher tractive effort about 470kn to a 66s 406kn tractive effort which gives it far more power at the rail.

Honestly if 66s were more powerful than 60s why have dbs had to majorly refurbish a fleet to work trains that 66s cant they are getting rid off far newer 66s more recently and still retaining a fleet of 60s if 66s were far more powerful as you claim why are they been sold off and 60s kept on the figures on wikipedia are not reflecting the truth.

There is a video of a class 66 66175 i think unable to start the murco tanks which 60s have hauled easily for years they had to use two 66s on this train at one point till they gave up and it went back to being 60 hauled so the claim that 66s have by far the highest power at rail is totally wrong its been to be honest the 60s have always been known as the heavy haulers of db cargos fleet along with the class 59s

I’d heard (may be wibble) that the Kingsbury tanks when 66 hauled are only 30 waggons, or 30 out of the 33(?) loaded since they cannot get them up the hill into the complex at Kingsbury.

As well as the old Liverpool - Ratcliffe ps coal trains which were 60 hauled as 66s couldn’t start them on the hill out of the docks at Liverpool.

I also have the Class 66 cinerail documentary where they state the 60s will still be the heavy haul locomotives. Though that’s hardly proof

 

[Ash Bridge]

I’d heard (may be wibble) that the Kingsbury tanks when 66 hauled are only 30 waggons, or 30 out of the 33(?) loaded since they cannot get them up

As well as the old Liverpool - Ratcliffe ps coal trains which were 60 hauled as 66s couldn’t start them on the hill out of the docks at Liverpool.

Class 59 was also no match for a 60, and especially so during bad rail conditions when trialled out of Liverpool docks some years back.

 

[james60059]

I’d heard (may be wibble) that the Kingsbury tanks when 66 hauled are only 30 waggons, or 30 out of the 33(?) loaded since they cannot get them up the hill into the complex at Kingsbury.

One day last year I was at Elford and a 66 was on 6M00, the afternoon Humber - Kingsbury with load 32, I understood later in the evening that all were loaded, got to admit it did crawl out of the loop, and the shed was really giving it some

 

[Grannyjoans]

Granny Jones claims to be a driver with Northern. Even though he might not have driven freight locos, you'd have thought he'd know that a 60 was significantly more powerful than a 66

Because it's not ??

The 60 is significantly lower geared than the 66 but has similar power.

The 66/6's have the same power as the other 66's but they're lower geared which means they can haul more at the expense of less speed. But they have the same power.

The Class 70 is more powerful than either. It can haul as much as a 60 but go as fast as a 66.

Another point is that a lot of Northern Drivers don't know what a 60 is.

 

[Rail Blues]

Because it's not ??

The 60 is significantly lower geared than the 66 but has similar power.

The 66/6's have the same power as the other 66's but they're lower geared which means they can haul more at the expense of less speed. But they have the same power.

The Class 70 is more powerful than either. It can haul as much as a 60 but go as fast as a 66.

Another point is that a lot of Northern Drivers don't know what a 60 is.

Nonsense - 60s have far more power at rail than a standard 66, but keep digging.

 

[43096]

Nonsense - 60s have far more power at rail than a standard 66, but keep digging.

I rather think you do not understand the definition of power.

I have seen the following quoted for Classes 60 and 66.
Class 60 power at rail: 2,415hp
Class 66 power at rail: 3,000hp
Quite a big discrepancy for only a 100hp difference in engine output, so one looks wrong to me (Class 66 looks high - Class 67 quoted as 2,494hp).

Where the Class 60 really scores is its ability to shift heavy trains, which is down to gearing and the SEPEX system.
Class 60 starting tractive effort: 535kN
Class 66 starting tractive effort: 409kN

Who's in a hole now?

 

[Grannyjoans]

Nonsense - 60s have far more power at rail than a standard 66

How can the 60 have far more power at rail given the fact that they've got a 3100 horsepower engine and a 66 has a 3,300 horsepower engine ? The transmission on the 66 would have to be awfully inefficient for a 60 to have "far more power at rail" than a 66 given the engine outputs of the two classes.

Even without quoting any power at rail figures it is just impossible for a 60 to have far more power at rail than a 66 when you realise the above.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

How can the 60 have far more power at rail given the fact that they've got a 3100 horsepower engine and a 66 has a 3,300 horsepower engine ? The transmission on the 66 would have to be awfully inefficient for a 60 to have "far more power at rail" than a 66 given the engine outputs of the two classes.

Even without quoting any power at rail figures it is just impossible for a 60 to have far more power at rail than a 66 when you realise the above.

Gearing has a lot to do with it; the best illustration of this is the class 08 and 09 shunting locomotive. These are identical except for the gearing - they have the same 400 hp engine and same diameter wheelsets.

08s are geared for a maximum speed of 20 mph and have a maximum tractive effort of 156 kN; the 09s are geared for 27 mph and have a maximum tractive effort of 111 kN.

The 09, incidentally, has a power at rail of 269 hp compared to the 260 hp of the 08.

Another demonstration of this is to compare the standard 66 with those geared for 65 mph. The standard 66 has a maximum tractive effort of 409 kN; the slower variant has 467 kN.

It makes perfect sense that the 60, which is geared for traction rather than speed, can pull more weight than a 66.

Also: @43096 is right; the figure for the 66 is high - their power at rail is 2,480 hp.

 

[furnessvale]

This discussion appears to be going round in circles.

The problem is there are two relevant measures of the "power" of a railway locomotive. In pure hp terms a 60 or 66 prime mover could be replaced by 2 or 3 F1 racing engines but I doubt you would move much freight.

IMO a far more relevant measure for rail use is tractive effort which is akin to torque in a road engine.

On that basis a class 60 is the more powerful loco as demonstrated by its pure grunt at shifting heavy freight.

 

[43096]

This discussion appears to be going round in circles.

The problem is there are two relevant measures of the "power" of a railway locomotive. In pure hp terms a 60 or 66 prime mover could be replaced by 2 or 3 F1 racing engines but I doubt you would move much freight.

IMO a far more relevant measure for rail use is tractive effort which is akin to torque in a road engine.

On that basis a class 60 is the more powerful loco as demonstrated by its pure grunt at shifting heavy freight.

There are not two definitions of power - it is just people not understanding.

 

[BRX]

I think it's true to say that in theory at least, any engine (including a person operating a winch) can provide a given tractive effort, given sufficient gearing. Is that right?

Power has a specific definition and is the rate at which work is done. So although the hand operated winch could move the train, it would do it very very slowly, and hence delivering a low level of power.

 

[furnessvale]

There are not two definitions of power - it is just people not understanding.

Hence my use of inverted commas and careful wording.