How feasible would it be to convert Class 60s for passenger use?

[PHILIPE]

What would be the cost of such a move ? Also what would be the purpose of any conversion ?

 

[GrimShady]

As with all engineering topics, it's probably technically feasible, but what you end up with is a 60 mph ETS loco with RA7, thus limiting it's usefulness to chocolate teapot level.

Quite apart from the technical feasibility, the costs will be enormous and will ultimately kill off any such project. I see no reason, however, to change the engine - there's nothing wrong with the Mirlees unit and to fit a new one in will be another monumental challenge because of emissions regulations.

Just buy a new loco.

True but I would have thought making the loco a mixed traffic or passenger version would have meant a reduction in ballast and changing over power unit to create a 100mph locomotive. By doing this surely the RA index would go down?

 

[GrimShady]

That doesn't explain why you think 60s, no matter how much work you did to them, would have been suitable for the Caledonian Sleeper.

57s have worked to Fort William and there are probably quite a few 47s in a state similar to the 60s at Toton that the owners would be willing to sell so just convert them. It would be cheaper, though I honestly don't know why you think anything should be converted when the 73s already have been.

At one stage the very thought of rebuilding 50 year old EDs for sleeper work would have seemed like a crazy idea too, to many it still is.

The Class 60 body and frame are much newer and longer with more space available to fit a variety of power units and ETH generators/other equipment.

 

[Townsend Hook]

At one stage the very thought of rebuilding 50 year old EDs for sleeper work would have seemed like a crazy idea too, to many it still is.

The Class 60 body and frame are much newer and longer with more space available to fit a variety of power units and ETH generators/other equipment.

But much heavier and a lot more difficult to route-clear. As the 73/9s have had so much cash invested in them there is clearly no prospect of 60s being used on the Sleeper. So do you have any suggestions as to where a rebuilt 60 would actually be of practical use, besides the Caley Sleeper?

 

[GrimShady]

But much heavier and a lot more difficult to route-clear. As the 73/9s have had so much cash invested in them there is clearly no prospect of 60s being used on the Sleeper. So do you have any suggestions as to where a rebuilt 60 would actually be of practical use, besides the Caley Sleeper?

It was a suggestion in retrospect. IE wouldn't they have made a better choice.

 

[xotGD]

Park them up, plug them in to the National Grid and get a contract under the Capacity Market to provide peak-shave electricity.

 

[Murph]

Park them up, plug them in to the National Grid and get a contract under the Capacity Market to provide peak-shave electricity.

Cut out the middle man, park a group of them by a few OHLE feeds and plug the wires into them.

 

[CosherB]

It was a suggestion in retrospect. IE wouldn't they have made a better choice.

No, it wouldn't have been a better choice.

 

[xotGD]

Cut out the middle man, park a group of them by a few OHLE feeds and plug the wires into them.

You may jest, but that would work too - Network Rail could get a Capacity Market contract to load shed by using the backup diesel generation instead of importing power from the grid!

 

[AnonymousUser1]

At one stage the very thought of rebuilding 50 year old EDs for sleeper work would have seemed like a crazy idea too, to many it still is.

The Class 60 body and frame are much newer and longer with more space available to fit a variety of power units and ETH generators/other equipment.

but what is the demand for a type 4 / 5 passenger/ mixed traffic diesel loco that cannot be met by existing class 57, 67 and 68 ?

as has been pointed outthe diesel hauled sections of the sleeper are short rakes which only require type 2/3 haulage , meaning the large , high RA ( even if it drops in the rebuild process) chassis/ body of the class 60 is unnecessary for that work vice the use of the re-engineered 73s and /or cl 37s ...

 

[DimTim]

Would conversion of a few class 66 make more sense?

 

[najaB]

Would conversion of a few class 66 make more sense?

From the 'at least they're not rusted out hulks' point of view, yes. Still have to answer the question 'Why?' though.

 

[Murph]

Would conversion of a few class 66 make more sense?

No. You'd end up with a bodged class 67-ish thing, but probably inferior to the 67. Just use a proven 67 instead.

Searching for use for a large fleet of unloved ex-freight locos does actually make some sense in the case of the 60s, even if it's not terribly likely to be viable at this stage of their life. The same isn't true of the 66s where the fleet is in active use and the 67s exist if you need a passenger version of them.

 

[ExRes]

With the current mess that is GWR and MML electrification, would it not be more sensible to remove the electrical gubbins and convert 90s and 92s to diesel?

 

[GrimShady]

What would be involved with the frame/body and bogies if they were to up rated to 90 or 100mph? Would the structure even be capable of that?

 

[D365]

With the current mess that is GWR and MML electrification, would it not be more sensible to remove the electrical gubbins and convert 90s and 92s to diesel?

"Sensible" is subjective.

What would be involved with the frame/body and bogies if they were to up rated to 90 or 100mph? Would the structure even be capable of that?

Err. Entirely new bogies. And completely reconfigured suspensions.

 

[Domh245]

What would be involved with the frame/body and bogies if they were to up rated to 90 or 100mph? Would the structure even be capable of that?

If you're lucky, you would be able to keep on using the body. If unlucky (but more likely) you are told that you need to prove compliance with more recent regulations, then you're going to have a lot of work on your hands.

 

[ExRes]

"Sensible" is subjective.

Sorry, I forget the

 

[CosherB]

ETH 60s. Diesel 90s. Whatever next ..... :roll:

 

[Domh245]

ETH 60s. Diesel 90s. Whatever next ..... :roll:

Electric HSTs?

 

[TimboM]

With the current mess that is GWR and MML electrification, would it not be more sensible to remove the electrical gubbins and convert 90s and 92s to diesel?

A 92 without the electric gubbins in and a diesel engine is effectively what a Class 60 is...!

 

[43096]

ETH 60s. Diesel 90s. Whatever next ..... :roll:

Nuclear powered 313s?

 

[gimmea50anyday]

LHCS 442's?....

Had to get that one in! XD

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Diesel 90s. Whatever next ..... :roll:

Could use 90 050 as a prototype using a spare MB275T...
Or maybe a 16CSVT?....

DUCK!!!!

 

[theageofthetra]

Still think how close that close that class got to having an SNCF style zig-zag front

 

[GrimShady]

Thank you to all who had positive contributions to the conversation.

 

[richieb1971]

I'm surprised DBS hasn't got a plan for these 60's yet. Either to chop em up or do them up for hire.

 

[DarloRich]

I'm surprised DBS hasn't got a plan for these 60's yet. Either to chop em up or do them up for hire.

you don't dump that much scarp metal into the market unless you want to drive the price down

and/or

why give your competitors a chance to steal even more work off you by letting them have useful locomotives?

 

[richieb1971]

you don't dump that much scarp metal into the market unless you want to drive the price down

and/or

why give your competitors a chance to steal even more work off you by letting them have useful locomotives?

I am sure there is middle ground on hiring out that would guarantee an operative income plus profit. If you lose out to the competition out right, you don't get anything at all. If DBS hired out on day 1 all the other FOC's probably would be getting by with ex DBS stock instead of buying incredibly expensive new stock whilst old stock was sitting rusting away. I see your point, but there is always more than one way to look at something.

Just get a lawyer involved and put a clause that you cannot steal existing DBS work.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I'm surprised DBS hasn't got a plan for these 60's yet. Either to chop em up or do them up for hire.

They might have some work on HS2 construction.