GBRF confirms conversion of Class 56s to Class 69s

[ac6000cw]

Dacia has been owned by Renault since 1999, and the cars do quite well in reliability surveys (What Car rates them more reliable than Renault-branded vehicles, coming 13th out of 31 brands surveyed).

 

[ac6000cw]

Surprised that four of the Romanian 56s are included given their apparent build quality compared to the rest of the fleet.

Mind, as they found with the Heinz conversions there is no such thing as a standard class 47!

I was at a talk given by the MD of GBRf recently - there were some photos of the first conversion candidate, stripped down to a bare bodyshell and primer painted. As far as I could tell from the pictures, and from what was said, the choice of which 56s to use was dependent on availability to purchase and bodyshell/bogie condition. I think very little if anything of the original fittings/wiring/pipework will be re-used - they will be very much a class 66 inside a 56 bodyshell, but I assume still riding on class 56 bogies and using rebuilt '56' traction motors (but I didn't get the chance to ask about that, so that is conjecture on my part).

These look like very serious rebuilds (not just a re-engining job) i.e. the sort of thing that Progress Rail in the US has done a lot of over the years.

 

[scarby]

Will they externally be recognisable as having once been a class 56, or will the cab exterior be a different shape?

 

[ac6000cw]

Will they externally be recognisable as having once been a class 56, or will the cab exterior be a different shape?

I don't know, but to qualify as 'rebuilds' for diesel emissions-control purposes (i.e. so that a Euro IIIa compliant engine can be fitted) and to keep their class 56 'grandfather rights'/type approval they can't change too much e.g. it was mentioned in the meeting that the locos have to weigh the same after conversion.

My *guess* is that they'll be recognisable as a derivative of a 56 - but they'll sound something like a 66 of course...

 

[supervc-10]

Dacias seem fine from a reliability point of view- but so they should be. They're very simple cars, which is why they're cheap. The Sandero for example is basically a Clio from a couple of generations ago with a new, cheaper, bodyshell on top and some of the newer engines.

No nation is particularly good or particularly bad at building things. It depends on the specs and how educated the people doing the building are. Thinking about the French- things like the TGV are superb pieces of engineering. A car like the Peugeot 307.... maybe not.

 

[hwl]

I don't know, but to qualify as 'rebuilds' for diesel emissions-control purposes (i.e. so that a Euro IIIa compliant engine can be fitted) and to keep their class 56 'grandfather rights'/type approval they can't change too much e.g. it was mentioned in the meeting that the locos have to weigh the same after conversion.

My *guess* is that they'll be recognisable as a derivative of a 56 - but they'll sound something like a 66 of course...

Isn't the 66's 710 engine lighter anyway?

 

[BRX]

I don't know, but to qualify as 'rebuilds' for diesel emissions-control purposes (i.e. so that a Euro IIIa compliant engine can be fitted) and to keep their class 56 'grandfather rights'/type approval they can't change too much e.g. it was mentioned in the meeting that the locos have to weigh the same after conversion.

My *guess* is that they'll be recognisable as a derivative of a 56 - but they'll sound something like a 66 of course...

These 'grandfather rights' seem a bit stupid to me - it makes sense to allow older locos to keep running, to allow operators to extract a decent amount of use from assets they've made a long term investment in, and perhaps also because the poor emissions ratings are compensated for to some extent by the energy and pollution caused by building new... but once you're literally putting a new engine in - the bit that causes the emissions - it seems a bit of a joke. There might be an argument for, say, an HST power car re-engining because it allows continued use of a whole train... but that's not the case with the 56s; keeping the bodyshell doesn't allow the continued operation of anything that wouldn't be possible with, say, a new 66, so where is the logic in allowing this? Seems like a loophole that should be closed.

Especially as rail continues to fall behind road vehicles in terms of emissions improvements.

 

[HOOVER29]

Before pontificating, you could at least get a few basic facts correct. FSO was Polish, not Romanian. Dacia is now owned by Renault, which when I last checked, is French. I'd also suggest your 'inward' views could be 'expanded' somewhat:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania
https://www.uncover-romania.com/about-romania/romanian-people/famous-romanians/

I know FSO was Polish, I was merely comparing Dacia to them as in the fact that they were both rubbish.

 

[HOOVER29]

Before pontificating, you could at least get a few basic facts correct. FSO was Polish, not Romanian. Dacia is now owned by Renault, which when I last checked, is French. I'd also suggest your 'inward' views could be 'expanded' somewhat:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania
https://www.uncover-romania.com/about-romania/romanian-people/famous-romanians/

Come to think about it the French aren’t all that hot at making cars either. Well they make good cars then stuff the electrics in. Yes build quality of Renault & Peugeot have hit the Lino in recent years. Straight from an AA mans mouth the most unreliable cars out there are Renault & Peugeot.

 

[CosherB]

These 'grandfather rights' seem a bit stupid to me - it makes sense to allow older locos to keep running, to allow operators to extract a decent amount of use from assets they've made a long term investment in, and perhaps also because the poor emissions ratings are compensated for to some extent by the energy and pollution caused by building new... but once you're literally putting a new engine in - the bit that causes the emissions - it seems a bit of a joke. There might be an argument for, say, an HST power car re-engining because it allows continued use of a whole train... but that's not the case with the 56s; keeping the bodyshell doesn't allow the continued operation of anything that wouldn't be possible with, say, a new 66, so where is the logic in allowing this? Seems like a loophole that should be closed.

Especially as rail continues to fall behind road vehicles in terms of emissions improvements.

AFAIK there is now no new Type 5 freight loco available for the UK market, so FOCs are having to be creative. That’s why GBRf are also sourcing second-hand 66s from mainland Europe.

So I assume that you also think that the GBRf 73/9s should not have been permitted?

 

[BRX]

AFAIK there is now no new Type 5 freight loco available for the UK market, so FOCs are having to be creative. That’s why GBRf are also sourcing second-hand 66s from mainland Europe.

So I assume that you also think that the GBRf 73/9s should not have been permitted?

The question is whether there'd be something available for the UK market, if there was more demand, which there would be if there wasn't this 'grandfather rights' loophole.

If it's the case that something for the UK market simply isn't feasible, and that's the reason for making these allowances, then why not just let them have new locos that are equally as non-compliant and polluting as the various rebuilds will be.

Another effect of not allowing this might be to force a bit more freight to go under electric power, which wouldn't be a bad thing.

 

[hwl]

The question is whether there'd be something available for the UK market, if there was more demand, which there would be if there wasn't this 'grandfather rights' loophole.

If it's the case that something for the UK market simply isn't feasible, and that's the reason for making these allowances, then why not just let them have new locos that are equally as non-compliant and polluting as the various rebuilds will be.

Another effect of not allowing this might be to force a bit more freight to go under electric power, which wouldn't be a bad thing.

It isn't a loophole as such, it is entirely there to encourage re-engining of older locomotives as it is a far cheaper way to reduce emissions overall (better BCR). The US mandates retrofitting emission reduction technology to existing engines and also rolled back the Tier 0 standard compliance to include include everything made since 1973.

The difference between EUROIIIA and IIIB/V is minimal and reengineing or upgrading a 20 year old loco to IIIA produces at least double the reduction than worrying about the differ between IIIA and B. You can upgrade about 6-8 locos to EuroIIIa for the cost of a new IIIB loco.

The other problem is the supply of 2nd hand electric locos lies mostly with DB (all except Anglia 90s) so the other operators would have to shell out at least 3m each for new electric locos.

 

[ac6000cw]

Isn't the 66's 710 engine lighter anyway?

Yes, it is - the possibility of having to add ballast weight was mentioned. Apparently keeping the overall loco weight unchanged is one of the qualifications for 'rebuild' status under the emissions rules.

 

[BRX]

The difference between EUROIIIA and IIIB/V is minimal and reengineing or upgrading a 20 year old loco to IIIA produces at least double the reduction than worrying about the differ between IIIA and B.

Sure... I get that logic. But it only really makes sense for locos that would otherwise be used in their original, more polluting state, right? Not for locos that are mostly sitting unused and defunct in sidings.

 

[hwl]

Sure... I get that logic. But it only really makes sense for locos that would otherwise be used in their original, more polluting state, right? Not for locos that are mostly sitting unused and defunct in sidings.

Still better than road...
It is also realised that rail freight operations are a competitive market and that needs to be maintained.

 

[furnessvale]

Another effect of not allowing this might be to force a bit more freight to go under electric power, which wouldn't be a bad thing.

Especially as rail continues to fall behind road vehicles in terms of emissions improvements.

The main effect of not allowing this would be to transfer freight from rail to road.

If you include all emissions including CO2, road has a LONG way to go before it even approaches rail. Perhaps emissions should be measured as gms per tonne/km moved over all forms of transport, rather than treating each mode separately.

 

[edwin_m]

Sure... I get that logic. But it only really makes sense for locos that would otherwise be used in their original, more polluting state, right? Not for locos that are mostly sitting unused and defunct in sidings.

I suppose someone could argue that the alternative to this conversion was to restore the 56s to original condition and keep running them, high-polluting engines and all. And as long as it's hauling a decent load just about any diesel on rail is going to be less polluting than putting the traffic on the roads.

 

[BRX]

Of course there's always the argument of regulatory burden being placed on the railways ending up shifting traffic to the roads, and that is a tricky issue. Of course the same argument can be used against lots of things including safety improvements or even workers' rights. My answer would be that it should be dealt with by overall transport policy that shifts more incentive to railfreight, alongside a gradual tightening of the environmental regulations. I do realise of course that the real world doesn't always work like that.

 

[Greybeard33]

The difference between EUROIIIA and IIIB/V is minimal and reengineing or upgrading a 20 year old loco to IIIA produces at least double the reduction than worrying about the differ between IIIA and B. You can upgrade about 6-8 locos to EuroIIIa for the cost of a new IIIB loco.

Relative to IIIB, IIIA permits a loco to emit eight times the particulates and double the NOx. Hardly minimal!

 

[hwl]

Relative to IIIB, IIIA permits a loco to emit eight times the particulates and double the NOx. Hardly minimal!

It is actually much more complicated than that as there is an average weighted drive cycle behind the headline test number which is in grams per kWh i.e. grams of pollutant per unit useful energy produced, the net result of the latest round of standard in both Europe and the US has been to improve idle performance. The difference between idle and full throttle will be circa 20 fold in terms of total pollutant mass but the improving standards have largely mandated the biggest changes at idle...

EuroIIIA is measured using ISO8178:F drive cycle (1970's DB diesel hydraulic loco!) and IIIB uses ISO8178:C1 drive cycle the default NRMM (off road) one so IIIA and IIIB aren't directly comparable.

 

[ExRes]

It seems that the first 3 of the 10 Class 56 donors for Class 69 conversion have been designated

69001 from 56311 - 69002 from 56031 - 69003 from 56018

69004 to 69010 will be confirmed later

 

[ExRes]

3 more 56s, 060, 065 & 077, moved from Leicester to Longport today by 47739 & 56312

 

[Northhighland]

It isn't a loophole as such, it is entirely there to encourage re-engining of older locomotives as it is a far cheaper way to reduce emissions overall (better BCR). The US mandates retrofitting emission reduction technology to existing engines and also rolled back the Tier 0 standard compliance to include include everything made since 1973.

The difference between EUROIIIA and IIIB/V is minimal and reengineing or upgrading a 20 year old loco to IIIA produces at least double the reduction than worrying about the differ between IIIA and B. You can upgrade about 6-8 locos to EuroIIIa for the cost of a new IIIB loco.

The other problem is the supply of 2nd hand electric locos lies mostly with DB (all except Anglia 90s) so the other operators would have to shell out at least 3m each for new electric locos.

Good post makes a lot of sense.

 

[EE Andy b1]

Is there any new updates on these locomotive conversions to class 69.

Keep seeing the odd photo of Class 56 shells being shunted round at Longport.

 

[ExRes]

The latest that I've seen is that the prototype is due to be completed next May, unless anyone on the forum works for Progress Rail I doubt we'll see or hear much for a few months yet

 

[ExRes]

Current situation update reported on WNXX this morning

69001 (56311) - Longport - body shell prepared/ready for internal rebuild

69002 (56031) - Longport - body shell prepared/ready for internal rebuild

69003 (56018) - body shell prepared - Marcroft

69004 (56069) - body shell under preparation - Marcroft

 

[trainmania100]

I've been hearing they'll be based at Tonbridge is this true?

 

[ExRes]

I've been hearing they'll be based at Tonbridge is this true?

At this stage I think you would have to be a GBRf insider to know the answer to that one

 

[snakeeyes]

Any photographs of the body shells?

 

[31160]

How many unmolested class 56s will be left if all those at Marcroft are converted, is it right only 006 and 097 are In full pres then theres 301 and the DCR ones are there any more?