GBRF confirms conversion of Class 56s to Class 69s

[Wyrleybart]

That’s no different from a 66 in terms of engine mounting, is it?

Engines in 66s are bolted straight to the frame. If you drive them you feel the vibration therough the DSD pedal.

 

[Future]

This sounds like they'll be out of action until a modification can be designed and installed?

I would suspect so but I don’t want to make any unwieldy claims. I’ve heard that by 0100 on Monday all 69s will be off GBRf TOPS and back to EMD but I can’t prove that.

 

[Suraggu]

This morning Mountfield gypsum working was allox to a 66. I thought this service was a core part of the 69's workings since they entered traffic.

 

[trainmania100]

This morning Mountfield gypsum working was allox to a 66. I thought this service was a core part of the 69's workings since they entered traffic.

As per a different thread they've been stepped down, although some say this is from Monday. Probably off it to avoid any potential issues arising

 

[Wyrleybart]

I would suspect so but I don’t want to make any unwieldy claims. I’ve heard that by 0100 on Monday all 69s will be off GBRf TOPS and back to EMD but I can’t prove that.

If they are not immediately stopped, it suggests there are no safety issues then.
Always thought it optimistic to order sixteen in two batches without any serious in service results from the first couple. The old German / European concept of building four of five of a prototype batch, then refining the design for a series class seemed like a good idea to me.

 

[D365]

If they are not immediately stopped, it suggests there are no safety issues then.
Always thought it optimistic to order sixteen in two batches without any serious in service results from the first couple. The old German / European concept of building four of five of a prototype batch, then refining the design for a series class seemed like a good idea to me.

Most of the 56s were not in a serviceable condition anyway. 104 and 312 might have been runners with a bit of work, but only 081 and 096 have been operated under GBRf ownership.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

As per a different thread they've been stepped down, although some say this is from Monday. Probably off it to avoid any potential issues arising

That thread has been merged into this one. The relevant messages are a page back from here.

 

[Future]

GBRF have issued this press statement: "GBRf Class 69 Following introduction of the class 69, and learning from the initial service phase of operation as well as build, GBRf and EMD are taking an opportunity of a change in traction requirements following winter operations to carry out a number of reliability, build quality and cab improvements to the class 69 fleet. These improvements include to the cab environment, new drivers seat, build quality and arising work. We are working with our supplier EMD to complete this as quickly as possible as a fleet wide program".

 

[D365]

Good news, all-in-all. Even the Class 56 has a few driver ergonomic issues to this day.

I would suspect that the additional EMDs from Europe buys the GBRf fleet a bit of breathing room.

 

[randyrippley]

Reportedly, the main reason for the swift withdrawal is that the crack may have split the crankshaft because of the 69’s lack of engine mounts or dampers. Also the remaining 56 conversions are on hold indefinitely so 081 and 098 are saved for now!

that's difficult to visualise
do you mean crankcase?

 

[fgwrich]

GBRF have issued this press statement: "GBRf Class 69 Following introduction of the class 69, and learning from the initial service phase of operation as well as build, GBRf and EMD are taking an opportunity of a change in traction requirements following winter operations to carry out a number of reliability, build quality and cab improvements to the class 69 fleet. These improvements include to the cab environment, new drivers seat, build quality and arising work. We are working with our supplier EMD to complete this as quickly as possible as a fleet wide program".

I can’t say I’m surprised to see build quality and arising work listed. Some of the quality of the welding and painting (not the main job carried out by Arlington but the chassis stuff carried out during the rebuild) has certainly been somewhat poor. You only have to see the locos on their transit moves to Eastleigh to understand what I’m talking about!

 

[Future]

that's difficult to visualise
do you mean crankcase?

I might do, I have no knowledge of what goes on in engines. This is just from sources I’ve had - hence ‘reportedly’

 

[Wyrleybart]

I can’t say I’m surprised to see build quality and arising work listed. Some of the quality of the welding and painting (not the main job carried out by Arlington but the chassis stuff carried out during the rebuild) has certainly been somewhat poor. You only have to see the locos on their transit moves to Eastleigh to understand what I’m talking about!

I have not seen any piccies published online to suggest any chassis stuff is iffy. The paint obviously has only been intended to get the locos from Longport to Arlingtons and there is no doubt the latter company have had to do a lot of prep on the bodyshells to get the paint finish good.
However, us on here have generally not seen inside the cabs so cannot really comment i nthe way John Smith clearly has. What's strange is that Progress Rail's customer (GBRf) has only now taken the stance regarding the ex works condition of the fleet, but as I said earlier - 69001 and 69002 should have been released from Longport for exhaustive trials and testing to define the ultimate class 69 setup - then put the batch through Longport for the finished product spec.

 

[Roger B]

Presumably the 69s have been stopped more or less where they were.

Are there any in Tonbrodge Yard - and if so which ones? I'm thinking of taking a trip to Tonbridge in a couple of weeks (half term hols), but that's dependent on what I'll find there.

And I'm wondering where the rectification work will be undertaken ... my guess is Stoke? But could it be done elsewhere - eg Eastleigh?

Many thanks

 

[that1pepfan]

Presumably the 69s have been stopped more or less where they were.

Are there any in Tonbrodge Yard - and if so which ones? I'm thinking of taking a trip to Tonbridge in a couple of weeks (half term hols), but that's dependent on what I'll find there.

And I'm wondering where the rectification work will be undertaken ... my guess is Stoke? But could it be done elsewhere - eg Eastleigh?

Many thanks

Longport I suppose

 

[BRX]

001, 003, 006 and 007 are apparently on their way from Tonbridge to Peterborough this morning.

002 and 004 left in Tonbridge

(according to local gen group)

 

[Razorblades]

And I'm wondering where the rectification work will be undertaken ... my guess is Stoke? But could it be done elsewhere - eg Eastleigh?

Based on reports elsewhere, it does appear that the 69s already delivered will have their retrospective work undertaken back at Stoke.

 

[Roger B]

001, 003, 006 and 007 are apparently on their way from Tonbridge to Peterborough this morning.

002 and 004 left in Tonbridge

(according to local gen group)

Based on reports elsewhere, it does appear that the 69s already delivered will have their retrospective work undertaken back at Stoke.

Many thanks guys.

On that showing, I think I'll try to catch-up with them en route to Longport.

 

[that1pepfan]

56081 seems to be out today

 

[D365]

No reason not to get more use out of the 56s while they’re available.

 

[JohnMcL7]

There's an article today on Rail Magazine claiming there's no hairline cracks and the main problems are water egress and engine noise:

Technical issues cause GBRf to withdraw Class 69s

GB Railfreight has confirmed that it has temporarily withdrawn its entire fleet of Class 69 locomotives in order to investigate faults being reported by drivers

www.railmagazine.com

 

[Razorblades]

There's an article today on Rail Magazine claiming there's no hairline cracks and the main problems are water egress and engine noise:

Technical issues cause GBRf to withdraw Class 69s

GB Railfreight has confirmed that it has temporarily withdrawn its entire fleet of Class 69 locomotives in order to investigate faults being reported by drivers

www.railmagazine.com

Water egress? I've read the article linked and it certainly says this, but where is the water escaping from, that's an odd one; the power units? Do they actually mean ingress, which would be a driver issue?

 

[Grumpy Git]

Water egress? I've read the article linked and it certainly says this, but where is the water escaping from, that's an odd one; the power units? Do they actually mean ingress, which would be a driver issue?

I suspect the water loss is between the engine and the radiator(s)?

 

[Razorblades]

I suspect the water loss is between the engine and the radiator(s)?

That's a decent bet, although I'm basing this on the grammar of the quote rather than any familiarity with
the power unit/ cooler-group arrangement of the real thing!

 

[Peter Mugridge]

There's an article today on Rail Magazine claiming there's no hairline cracks and the main problems are water egress and engine noise:

Should mean it's a lot quicker and easier to fix them, then?

 

[randyrippley]

Water egress could mean the cooling system leaking into the oil

 

[Mordac]

Or maybe they meant ingress but messed it up.

 

[dgl]

Or maybe they meant ingress but messed it up.

Probably I would think, never heard anyone say "water egress", you'd usually reference something leaking out by using the word leak!

 

[Grumpy Git]

Probably I would think, never heard anyone say "water egress", you'd usually reference something leaking out by using the word leak!

Semantics to dumb-down the problem I suspect?

 

[ac6000cw]

Probably I would think, never heard anyone say "water egress", you'd usually reference something leaking out by using the word leak!

I agree - I suspect it's most likely a typo/autocorrect/autocomplete error and should say 'ingress'.