GB Railfreight in 'locomotive acquisition' talks

[CosherB]

Of course DRS has guaranteed income in the form of nuclear contracts, and therefore can afford to play trains with museum pieces that any sensible management would have got rid of long ago. Let's not pretend DRS is a plucky small business taking it to the dominant players, they're essentially underwritten by the tax payer.

Indeed. I'd like to know if my hard earned taxes have been used on the barn-pot refurbishments of 37407 and 37424. :roll:

No other FOC in their right mind would have even contemplated such an exercise. Let's hope Debbie Francis thinks along the same lines.

Rant over!

 

[CosherB]

They are designed for the same purpose though. The 59's are no longer with us for a reason.

Did the 59s vanish overnight?

 

[squizzler]

When they were built it was a toss-up as to whether a Mirlees or Ruston power unit would be used. I presume there's no chance of getting replacement Mirlees units, but does anyone know how easy it would be to retrofit a Ruston?

I do not think that an engine replacement is on the cards because for specific fuel consumption, simplicity and "grandfather rights" for emissions the Mirleees remains desirable. But let's imagine that it was. There might be three competing philosophies you could chose from.

One is to remain - as you suggest - with the "large lump" school of thought from a different engine brand. Perhaps the "straight eight" Mirlees unit could best be replaced with a custom V8 GEVO or EMD1010 from the states heavy freight scene. Similar power, but probably that would be the problem, these units would be no great step up from the existing unit in power or fuel efficiency, but would be better in emissions.

Another option could be a faster revving engine like the MTU 4000 or Cat 175 family. This could be a good way of getting more power whilst remaining in the same axle load (assuming the traction motors can be fettled to take the power).

On the other hand it might be better to pick some sort of genset system. This might be the best bet overall because the (previously specialised heavy haul) loco would become more versatile.

 

[hwl]

I do not think that an engine replacement is on the cards because for specific fuel consumption, simplicity and "grandfather rights" for emissions the Mirleees remains desirable. But let's imagine that it was. There might be three competing philosophies you could chose from.

One is to remain - as you suggest - with the "large lump" school of thought from a different engine brand. Perhaps the "straight eight" Mirlees unit could best be replaced with a custom V8 GEVO or EMD1010 from the states heavy freight scene. Similar power, but probably that would be the problem, these units would be no great step up from the existing unit in power or fuel efficiency, but would be better in emissions.

Agreed, Interestingly the "new" * EMD 1010 v12 4 stroke is very similar at the cylinder level to the Mirlees unit in the 60s so a straight 8 version for the 60s isn't as mad as it seems. The performance and fuel stats are also remarkably similar on per cylinder basis.

*development started in 1984!

 

[43096]

I do not think that an engine replacement is on the cards because for specific fuel consumption, simplicity and "grandfather rights" for emissions the Mirleees remains desirable. But let's imagine that it was. There might be three competing philosophies you could chose from.

One is to remain - as you suggest - with the "large lump" school of thought from a different engine brand. Perhaps the "straight eight" Mirlees unit could best be replaced with a custom V8 GEVO or EMD1010 from the states heavy freight scene. Similar power, but probably that would be the problem, these units would be no great step up from the existing unit in power or fuel efficiency, but would be better in emissions.

Another option could be a faster revving engine like the MTU 4000 or Cat 175 family. This could be a good way of getting more power whilst remaining in the same axle load (assuming the traction motors can be fettled to take the power).

On the other hand it might be better to pick some sort of genset system. This might be the best bet overall because the (previously specialised heavy haul) loco would become more versatile.

GEVO is not an option: it doesn't fit. Hence why the 70s don't have it.

If you go for something higher revving then you will need to look at the alternator: is it suitable for the higher speed or does it need replacing?

 

[Photohunter71]

M.A.N (Nuremberg Automotive and Machinery) also offer engines for locomotives (effectively that's what Ruston and Mirrlees became absorbed into when both GEC {Ruston} and Hawker Siddley {Mirrlees} were broken up and taken over by other firms, the engine divisions were sold off), So there's another option.

 

[gazthomas]

Did the 59s vanish overnight?

I think the OP meant 58's

 

[squizzler]

Agreed, Interestingly the "new" * EMD 1010 v12 4 stroke is very similar at the cylinder level to the Mirlees unit in the 60s so a straight 8 version for the 60s isn't as mad as it seems. The performance and fuel stats are also remarkably similar on per cylinder basis.

*development started in 1984!

Precisely my thinking. So whilst a newer engine benefiting from more development the power density has not materially increased. The cylinders of the US engines at 265 mm and 250 mm bore respecitvely are smaller than those of the Sulzers and Mirrlees that BR used to run, presumably balanced by the greater bulk of emissions control, hence ...

GEVO is not an option: it doesn't fit. Hence why the 70s don't have it.

If you go for something higher revving then you will need to look at the alternator: is it suitable for the higher speed or does it need replacing?

Worthwhile things to consider. I had not thought about the alternator possibly being inappropriate for newer engines or whether, in the industry, this means the difference between a viable re-power or a new engine. I have also never pondered the Powerhaul engine as an option for re-powering older units (like the 60's or maybe even 37's) - perhaps because it seems much more proprietary to a particular loco than what I think of commodity engines from the likes of Cat, MTU, Cummins. However the same could be said for the GEVO and EMD 1010 families too.

OTOH, faster revving engines with better power density than the Mirrlees lump might bring the route availability down from group 7 to group 6 making the loco more desirable.

 

[hwl]

Precisely my thinking. So whilst a newer engine benefiting from more development the power density has not materially increased. The cylinders of the US engines at 265 mm and 250 mm bore respecitvely are smaller than those of the Sulzers and Mirrlees that BR used to run, presumably balanced by the greater bulk of emissions control, hence

The MB 275 has bore of 275mm and stroke of 300mm where as the EMD 1010 has bore of 265mm and stroke of 300mm, so hardly smaller.

 

[daikilo]

I think the OP meant 58's

Doesn't fit with the reference to EMD ... unless he was suggesting that anything American/Canadian is better than anything British. Paradoxically, the 58s used the GM/GE approach to modular build on a load-bearing frame, just not quite as good.

 

[Mordac]

Indeed. I'd like to know if my hard earned taxes have been used on the barn-pot refurbishments of 37407 and 37424. :roll:

No other FOC in their right mind would have even contemplated such an exercise. Let's hope Debbie Francis thinks along the same lines.

Rant over!

It does seem that the new regime under Debbie might change things in this regard. Certainly, the crackpot renovations of decrepit traction seem to have stopped, at least for the time being, and there's rumours of more sales of 37s.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Doesn't fit with the reference to EMD ... unless he was suggesting that anything American/Canadian is better than anything British. Paradoxically, the 58s used the GM/GE approach to modular build on a load-bearing frame, just not quite as good.

I think he might have meant "no longer with us" in terms of new builds taking place?

 

[CosherB]

I think he might have meant "no longer with us" in terms of new builds taking place?

I wonder if this has caused any excitement at GBRf?

DBC Class 66

 

[TimboM]

I wonder if this has caused any excitement at GBRf?

DBC Class 66

I thought GBRf had surplus 66s themselves and rumours of some going to Europe to other Hector Rail operations?

 

[CosherB]

I thought GBRf had surplus 66s themselves and rumours of some going to Europe to other Hector Rail operations?

That's news to me pal.

 

[DarloRich]

Indeed. I'd like to know if my hard earned taxes have been used on the barn-pot refurbishments of 37407 and 37424. :roll:

No other FOC in their right mind would have even contemplated such an exercise. Let's hope Debbie Francis thinks along the same lines.

Rant over!

surely an overhaul funded by committed customer spend rather than a waste of tax payers money.

 

[TimboM]

I thought GBRf had surplus 66s themselves and rumours of some going to Europe to other Hector Rail operations?

That's news to me pal.

I've seen it mentioned a few times, but cannot lay my finger on it right now (and it was certainly in the "possible" category rather than confirmed at all).

I think what is apparent is there's some availability in the GBRf 66 fleet - the latest batch (6677x) - barring celebrity 779 which is in a different pool - have had a pretty quiet summer with some of them not working for weeks on end. Things have picked up and they're back in action now I understand.

They've also got a couple on loan to DCR and Colas last I heard so others they could 'recall' I guess if needed.

So not sure if there's any mileage in the export-to-Europe story - with GBRf's growth you'd think they'd need their 66 capacity pretty soon. However, as per the focus of this post, I believe what they're looking at now is greater Heavy Haul capability (not more 66s).

 

[richieb1971]

According to the cl60group 60047 was hired by DBS from Colas for a Newport docks job.

That seems a bit weird.

 

[TimboM]

According to the cl60group 60047 was hired by DBS from Colas for a Newport docks job.

That seems a bit weird.

It worked the 6F05 05:04 Margam Terminal Complex to Newport Docks then the return working 6F06 13:30 Newport Docks - Margam today.

I believe that this is one of the workings Colas are operating for DB due to the current driver/crew shortage issues DB are having following the introduction their new operating model - i.e. Colas are providing traction and driver, not just the loco.

 

[richieb1971]

I joined the Cl60group and some chatter is going on my facebook feeds.

Quote "The whole loco will be refurbished to the 60 overhaul spec created by myself for the electronic bits, other parts will be sourced for the mechanical and body items".

He later goes on to say the Mirlees lump is staying. I assume thats the engine itself.

 

[CosherB]

Reported elsewhere that it is now confirmed that the WQDA allocated Class 60s (60003 60004 60005 60006 60008 60013 60014 60018 60022 60023 60025 60027 60030 60031 60032 60037 60042 60050 60051 & 60052) are the twenty Class 60s that are being sold to Wabtec. The repair of these Class 60s looks set to be a joint effort with body and electrical work being undertaken at Loughborough while the mechanical work, as the jig for rebuilding the Class 60 power units is still at Toton, will be undertaken at DBC.

 

[CosherB]

So no new engines for the 60s.

 

[squizzler]

He later goes on to say the Mirlees lump is staying. I assume thats the engine itself.

Yes, "lump" is - presumably from the motoring scene - slang for the engine generally.

 

[richieb1971]

According to the people in the know Brush are over hauling them to sell with service contracts. Perhaps GBRf's idea?

 

[richieb1971]

http://www.railwaysillustrated.com/2017/08/08/class-60s-sold-to-wabtec/

It has been confirmed that Wabtec is acquiring the 20 Class 60s offered for sale by DB Cargo. The sale includes several locos currently stored in the long line at Toton and plans are being drawn up to move them. It appears that body and electrical repair work will take place at the Brush facility in Loughborough, while the rebuild of the engines will be undertaken at Toton, where the jig used for the ‘Super 60’ programme remains. The locos involved are: 60003 60004 60005 60006 60008 60013 60014 60018 60022 60023 60025 60027 60030 60031 60032 60037 60042 60050 60051 and 60052.

 

[CosherB]

According to the people in the know Brush are over hauling them to sell with service contracts. Perhaps GBRf's idea?

Who are the people in the know?

I'd question this as Wabtec / Brush has (I'd assume) no expertise at the moment to overhaul the Mirlees MB275, hence the news that DBC Toton will be doing the engine work.

Unless, of course, the service contract engine work would be sub-contracted out by Wabtec to DBC. A bit messy and expensive I'd have thought.

If this was the case, why don't DBC do all the refurb work and service contracts themselves, as they did for the Colas 60s?

 

[CosherB]

http://www.railwaysillustrated.com/2017/08/08/class-60s-sold-to-wabtec/

Isn't this what I posted above?

 

[richieb1971]

Isn't this what I posted above?

Not sure I can't see anything you posted above.

The person who is posting on my facebook is an employee of Brush, Loughborough who created the electronics workings of the Super60 programme. His profile states he worked for EWS, DBS, Brush and his involvement in the class 60's seems pretty much consistent. He is middle aged and has pictures in his profile that are taken from the railway tracks.

edit - I see you posted the contents of the webpage, thats why I didn't see it.

 

[37038]

Who are the people in the know?

I'd question this as Wabtec / Brush has (I'd assume) no expertise at the moment to overhaul the Mirlees MB275, hence the news that DBC Toton will be doing the engine work.

Unless, of course, the service contract engine work would be sub-contracted out by Wabtec to DBC. A bit messy and expensive I'd have thought.

If this was the case, why don't DBC do all the refurb work and service contracts themselves, as they did for the Colas 60s?

Contract engine work being done at Toton as they have the engine jig for rebuilding them. The rest of the non mechanical work will be undertaken at Loughborough

 

[richieb1971]

A bit of trivia.

I spoke to one of the technicians about why the 60 is restricted to 60mph. He said the wheel bearings overheat at 75mph from tests done in 1990/1.

The drivers wanted a faster loco because before the 60 was introduced they used double headed 37's on freights with timings at 75mph. Obviously this could not be recreated using the 60. So tests were done and failed due to wheel bearings overheating on the traction motors. It was just a wear issue, but the speed they were wearing out it wasn't cost effective to keep replacing them and modifications at the time were very expensive.

Since then some software control has been put in place that regulates the heat of the bearings. But this alone is not enough to give the class a clearing to run at 75mph. He stated a 60/1 class programme could be done, but one has not been sanctioned.

It seems to me that some of the folks in Toton are quite the enthusiasts themselves.