• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

GBRF confirms conversion of Class 56s to Class 69s

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,582
Expect there's little difference in outright power but 66 may have higher starting and continuous tractive effort due to lower gearing and more complex electronic control (but expect 69s have seriously updated electronics when compared to the 56s).
Given the age of 66s, is there any chance that the 69 will also have "seriously updated electronics" when compared to the 66s as well as 56s?

I am thinking of how well a single 88 can perform over the northern fells.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Richard Scott

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
3,696
Given the age of 66s, is there any chance that the 69 will also have "seriously updated electronics" when compared to the 66s as well as 56s?

I am thinking of how well a single 88 can perform over the northern fells.
Probably but doubt they have creep control etc? They may have but think you need separately excited motors for it to work properly which 69s won't have.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,582
Probably but doubt they have creep control etc? They may have but think you need separately excited motors for it to work properly which 69s won't have.
Thanks for that. Amazing that SEPEX was fitted on a 58, 34 years ago but not on this loco. Let's hope its absence is not a major Achilles heel.
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
11,459
Thanks for that. Amazing that SEPEX was fitted on a 58, 34 years ago but not on this loco. Let's hope its absence is not a major Achilles heel.
The traction systems aren’t being significantly updated. It’s outside of the scope of the Cl69 conversion.
 

ac6000cw

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2014
Messages
3,157
Location
Cambridge, UK
Re. the traction control system, this is from the 'News' section of the GBRf website:

Originally built during 1976-1984, the Class 56 repower conversion will upgrade the locomotives existing Ruston-Paxman RK3 engines and control gear with EMD 12-710 Series engines, rated for EU Stage IIIA emissions certification, and updated electronic controls, based upon the world-renowned Class 66 locomotives.
...and this is what I said in post #591:
As for tractive effort and power-at-rail I assume only GBRf and Progress Rail would know, but given that the 69 retains the 56 bogies and traction motors but gains a more modern traction control system, I'd guess the low-speed tractive effort and wheelslip control would be better than a 56 but not as good as a 66.
My understanding (based partly on what was said by the MD of GBRf at a railway club meeting I attended a while ago) is that the traction control computer system is basically the same EMD/Progress Rail one that is used in the class 66.

What I've never managed to find out is if the alternator is a cl. 56 one or a new EMD one - anyone know for sure?

(The cl. 56 alternator has been mated with the EMD 645 engine before in the cl. 57 rebuilds, so it's probably theoretically possible to mate the cl. 56 alternator to the 710 engine)

AFAIK, EMD/Progress Rail have never offered Sepex DC motor control, they went directly from all-parallel connected, DC series-wound motors (with wheel slip/wheel creep control performed via electronic control of alternator excitation) - which is what the 59s & 66s have - to AC traction drives using inverters feeding induction motors, for their home market locos at least.

Probably but doubt they have creep control etc? They may have but think you need separately excited motors for it to work properly which 69s won't have.
Other things being equal, individual axle control will give you the best overall wheel slip control, because you can properly compensate for weight transfer and variations in adhesion between axles (up to the limits of the motor capability). But you don't need it just to do wheel creep control i.e. keeping the axles in the zone of maximum tractive effort, as the EMD 'Super Series' wheelslip control - which came to the UK on the 59s in 1985 - demonstrated.
 

cj_1985

Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
711
I think the 69s are expected to be slightly weaker than a 66/0, ISTR this is to do with them retaining the class 56 traction motors rather than being fitted with the same as the 66. Also worth remembering that the 69s don't have radial steer bogies like the 66s, so there will be a different in track access costs
 

BRX

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
3,638
69002 today. I think this is the first time I've seen a 69 out on a regular revenue earning run without another loco in the consist for backup (doesn't mean it's the first time it's happened though).

 

Grumpy Git

On Moderation
Joined
13 Oct 2019
Messages
2,137
Location
Liverpool
69002 today. I think this is the first time I've seen a 69 out on a regular revenue earning run without another loco in the consist for backup (doesn't mean it's the first time it's happened though).


Look at the appalling state of the vegetation on the parapet, (buddleia I assume)?
 

BRX

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
3,638
Look at the appalling state of the vegetation on the parapet, (buddleia I assume)?
yes, buddleia.
They cut it out only a few years ago, and re-did bits of brickwork, but not well enough, and it all sprouted again.
It's not even the worst bit around here.
 

Juniper Driver

Established Member
Joined
17 Jul 2007
Messages
2,074
Location
SWR Metals
69002 today. I think this is the first time I've seen a 69 out on a regular revenue earning run without another loco in the consist for backup (doesn't mean it's the first time it's happened.
Saw that at Ashford. (near Staines)
Second one I've seen I have seen 69003 also.
 

Flange Squeal

Established Member
Joined
17 Jul 2012
Messages
1,265
69002 failed on it today apparently...
Blocked the Down Fast between Winchfield and Basingstoke from 1530 for around 3.5 hours, when it was rescued by a 66. Realtime Trains reports it as “a problem with the traction equipment”.

 

fgwrich

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2009
Messages
9,289
Location
Between Edinburgh and Exeter
Blocked the Down Fast between Winchfield and Basingstoke from 1530 for around 3.5 hours, when it was rescued by a 66. Realtime Trains reports it as “a problem with the traction equipment”.

Surprisingly rescued by a 66 from Tonbridge as opposed to Eastleigh. I gather as a result it missed the boat at Southampton Docks, and returned empty. Whatever the problem was, was subsequently fixed though as the 69 led the return run back to Tonbridge this evening.
 

Mollman

Established Member
Joined
21 Sep 2016
Messages
1,233
Maybe the 66 would have been put to better use on the front of the train in the first place?

As a matter of interest, how often does a 66 fail?
On that logic all freight should be double headed.

According to Modern Railways article on 69 conversion last year, class 66s were achieving 87,500 miles per casualty. The idea of the 69 is to get a similar reliability through being a 66 in a different shell.
https://www.modernrailways.com/arti...6 reliability is,watch table looks even worse.
 

BRX

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
3,638
69004 leading 69003 on the Mountfield-Southampton run today.

 

K.o.R

Member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
658
69004 leading 69003 on the Mountfield-Southampton run today.

I feel like 69004 needs some lining or other details on the windows because it looks weirdly "unfinished" to me at the moment.
 

Speed43125

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2019
Messages
1,137
Location
Dunblane
I quite like that actually, its pretty striking.

Does anyone know why its not in 2 tone green like the 47s which share their bodyshell would have worn though?
 

Spartacus

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2009
Messages
2,928
I quite like that actually, its pretty striking.

Does anyone know why its not in 2 tone green like the 47s which share their bodyshell would have worn though?

Because it's base on 33008 Eastleigh? The question might be why did the choose to have the nameplate above instead of on the bodyside band as 33008 had?
 

Spartacus

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2009
Messages
2,928
I think 33008 did briefly have the nameplate above the band…

That's new to me if it did. I can't say I'm bother either way, but I've no doubt there's be some frothing that it's 'wrong', despite everything else which by necessity doesn't match 33008.
 

pdeaves

Established Member
Joined
14 Sep 2014
Messages
5,631
Location
Gateway to the South West
I quite like that actually, its pretty striking.

Does anyone know why its not in 2 tone green like the 47s which share their bodyshell would have worn though?
Maybe that will be the next repaint?

How many 69s will there be? With no two the same colours, this looks like an ideal class for the model manufacturers to grab with both hands.
 

Top