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

[ExRes]

There are no concrete proposals as far as I know.

What, they're going to use 37425?

 

[PYROOGOBBO]

Could the class 60's be handy for use as Sleeper Thunderbird Trains? (specially as the 92's and 90's seem to not have the best reliability)

 

[najaB]

Could the class 60's be handy for use as Sleeper Thunderbird Trains? (specially as the 92's and 90's seem to not have the best reliability)

Not as useful as the 67s are.

 

[PYROOGOBBO]

Not as useful as the 67s are.

I couldn't see a 67 being too happy hauling a 92 + 17 carriages though :'), plus i heard a bit about 67's struggling in the highland lines

 

[TimboM]

Could the class 60's be handy for use as Sleeper Thunderbird Trains? (specially as the 92's and 90's seem to not have the best reliability)

Sadly another idea that is completely flawed. Aside from the fact the 92s are so far proving to be very reliable post their modifications (and all but one of the F/L 90s have gone back to F/L), the only loco that can realistically "Thunderbird" the Caley Sleeper gong forward when the new stock arrives is another 92 (due to ETS load, different couplings etc).

Also, with GBRf providing the traction, in the very rare instance they would need a freight lovo to rescue/drag the Sleeper they'd just use one of their 66s. They're not going to buy or hire 60s (or 67s for that matter) from DB Cargo which need a lot of work/maintenance to be used once in a blue moon for something they have other better options for.

 

[najaB]

I couldn't see a 67 being too happy hauling a 92 + 17 carriages though :'), plus i heard a bit about 67's struggling in the highland lines

A 66 then if you don't need an ETH supply (or get a 70 to give it a push. )

 

[TimboM]

A 66 then if you don't need an ETH supply (or get a 70 to give it a push. )

Pushed by a 70?? That's almost as daft as most of the rest of the ideas on this thread...

 

[najaB]

Pushed by a 70?? That's almost as daft as most of the rest of the ideas on this thread...

I know. That sort of thing would never happen.

 

[PYROOGOBBO]

They did use a pair of 47's on the sleeper once when it was diverted :3

 

[D365]

They did use a pair of 47's on the sleeper once when it was diverted :3

Neither of which is a Class 60

 

[TimboM]

They did use a pair of 47's on the sleeper once when it was diverted :3

...at one point during those diverts they also had a 66 T'n'T with a 67, plus a 90 DIT.

None of which are a 60 either.

 

[GrimShady]

Its worth noting that 66s are the freight versions of Iarnród Éireanns 201 Class Passenger locos.

 

[GrimShady]

For someone with only 24 posts to your name, you're quite rude.

I am going to echo others comments. It wasn't a suitable loco to be converted into passenger use, particularly when demand for passenger locos is going down as most services move towards multiple unit operation. Like it or not, economics dictate that MUs are the future.

Sleeper services and TPE are the exceptions (I have no idea why in the case of TPE)

The amount of post if have doesn't come into it. I asked a question about converting 60s to Passenger use and was subject to the usual "stupid thread" comments by various long time forum members. If they don't like it then don't respond......simple. How do you think it makes new forum members feel when you have constant belittling comments like this to deal with from people who seem to think the have some sort of right to talk down to anyone just because they have more posts!

There is a trend of bad attitudes by long time members on the site which has been noticed in other threads!

 

[GrimShady]

For TPE, I think that it's a combination of "something that they can order fairly urgently" (tagging it on to the CAF order for Sleeper coaches) and "something that can provide capacity in the short term but be easily converted to electric haulage once the wires start to go up".

The Mk5a coaches are merely a blip on an otherwise uninterrupted downward trajectory of loco haulage - it's more about getting something up and running before the wires go up (that can be used once the wires are up).

As for the rest of the thread... well, there seems to be a lot of imagination on the Forum these days. Converting 43s for freight and converting 60s for passenger use?

Or was it adding pantographs to 43s and converting 91s onto sleepers/ freight? 37s on the Highland Main Line and Sleepers to Wick? I even saw one suggestion at a line from Aberystwyth to Carmarthen!

I think that 6Gman's suggestion of steam hauled 442s looks more likely

43s for Parcel traffic is currently being discussed.
Electric HSTs were planned by BR.
91s were designed to be used for Sleepers on the WCML originaly

 

[D365]

You asked a question. You had an answer. What more do you want?

 

[GrimShady]

You asked a question. You had an answer. What more do you want?

No I asked a question and got someones opinion of the question...not the same thing.

 

[D365]

No I asked a question and got someones opinion of the question...not the same thing.

You were told that the conversion is not feasible. The Class 60s are very much specialist machines. There's not much to be said after that.

 

[DarloRich]

You were told that the conversion is not feasible. The Class 60s are very much specialist machines. There's not much to be said after that.

exactly - they are heavy freight locomotives designed for a particular purpose. They aren't mixed traffic engines and to try and create on out of a class 60 would be pointless and ruinously expensive returning no real benefit.

However this kind of wibble is loved by spotters with little connection with the economic realities of the business or operational worlds.

 

[GrimShady]

You were told that the conversion is not feasible. The Class 60s are very much specialist machines. There's not much to be said after that.

The mods changed my thread title, Not my doing. At no point did i ask if anyone thought the idea was daft or stupid etc. As I have said before I was interested in technical aspects of the conversion.

 

[D365]

The mods changed my thread title, Not my doing. At no point did i ask if anyone thought the idea was daft or stupid etc. As I have said before I was interested in technical aspects of the conversion.

And like I've said before, there aren't any technical aspects, because it isn't feasible. If you want to have a go yourself you're more than welcome, but I doubt anybody will be willing to join in.

 

[GrimShady]

And like I've said before, there aren't any technical aspects, because it isn't feasible. If you want to have a go yourself you're more than welcome, but I doubt anybody will be willing to join in.

Sounds to me like its perfectly technically feasible but not on the financially feasible.

Really no point to you being on this thread tbh. And like I've said before fell free not to join in

 

[D365]

Sounds to me like its perfectly technically feasible but not on the financially feasible.

And because it's not financially feasible, nobody is going to devise a conversion programme.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

The amount of post if have doesn't come into it. I asked a question about converting 60s to Passenger use and was subject to the usual "stupid thread" comments by various long time forum members. If they don't like it then don't respond......simple. How do you think it makes new forum members feel when you have constant belittling comments like this to deal with from people who seem to think the have some sort of right to talk down to anyone just because they have more posts!

There is a trend of bad attitudes by long time members on the site which has been noticed in other threads!

Sounds to me like its perfectly technically feasible but not on the financially feasible.

Really no point to you being on this thread tbh. And like I've said before fell free not to join in

Hmmm... so you think that because you started this thread that somehow gives you the right to decide which opinions are welcome and which are not? It's the internet! Provided people express themselves in a manner which complies with the rules of this forum they can say pretty much what they want. Compared with some places this forum is very friendly and tolerant. But no member has any privilege which denies others the right to completely disagree with them. If any specific post really concerns you then please use the report facility; I have done so myself from time to time and am happy that the moderators at least consider my reports even if they don't agree with my concerns. And that is how it should be.

 

[GrimShady]

Hmmm... so you think that because you started this thread that somehow gives you the right to decide which opinions are welcome and which are not? It's the internet! Provided people express themselves in a manner which complies with the rules of this forum they can say pretty much what they want. Compared with some places this forum is very friendly and tolerant. But no member has any privilege which denies others the right to completely disagree with them. If any specific post really concerns you then please use the report facility; I have done so myself from time to time and am happy that the moderators at least consider my reports even if they don't agree with my concerns. And that is how it should be.

Nope I just don't see the point of posting for the sake of calling someones thread stupid/daft/blinkered.

Agree or disagree I'm not really bothered but that isn't the nature of this discussion. I was hoping to hear from some of the more technically minded members that know the locos inside and out would have been able to contribute some interesting insight in what would be required eg Bodywork, Frames, Bogies, Alternator, Brakes, Engine, Electrical, Exhaust etc.

There have been some good posts and some quite frankly unnecessary ones

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Nope I just don't see the point of posting for the sake of calling someones thread stupid/daft/blinkered.

Agree or disagree I'm not really bothered but that isn't the nature of this discussion. I was hoping to hear from some of the more technically minded members that know the locos inside and out would have been able to contribute some interesting insight in what would be required eg Bodywork, Frames, Bogies, Alternator, Brakes, Engine, Electrical, Exhaust etc.

There have been some good posts and some quiet frankly unnecessary ones

It's quite possible that this forum is not the most appropriate place to ask your questions. This may be a railway forum with a lot of members but that's no guarantee that any one of them is a technical expert in your particular area of interest. Perhaps you should consider alternate sources of information...

 

[DarloRich]

Nope I just don't see the point of posting for the sake of calling someones thread stupid/daft/blinkered.

Agree or disagree I'm not really bothered but that isn't the nature of this discussion. I was hoping to hear from some of the more technically minded members that know the locos inside and out would have been able to contribute some interesting insight in what would be required eg Bodywork, Frames, Bogies, Alternator, Brakes, Engine, Electrical, Exhaust etc.

There have been some good posts and some quiet frankly unnecessary ones

its called honesty. The truth is that the idea is feasible but impractical from an economic viewpoint. There really is no need to look further.

 

[GrimShady]

its called honesty. The truth is that the idea is feasible but impractical from an economic viewpoint. There really is no need to look further.

Its called ignorance. Maybe some of us like to look at these aspects and use our imagination.

I grow weary of this. I wont be responding to any more negative posts.

Thanks again to those who contributed useful info.

 

[Murph]

You are missing a very important point about what you perceive as the unwanted comments. In an engineering discussion (and many other classes of discussion), the opposing views are equally as important as the supporting views, sometimes they are even more important. If you make any attempt to block or silence the opposing views, you end up with an inferior discussion which fails to properly cover the topic.

Now, having said that, I'm not saying that the balance has been perfect in this thread so far. There may have been some physical abuse of deceased equines on both sides, although I offer no opinion on any specific post or poster. On both sides, just repeating the same point does not really achieve anything. Trying to discourage the negative posts at the level we are now seeing will very likely cause people who might have contributed something that you would consider useful to just not bother.

Now, on topic, I can see the motivation for exploring this idea, namely that there's a bunch of expensive and (formerly) high quality assets gently rusting away. My own opinion of it is that it's past the point in their life where it is likely to make sense. In many ways, you have a large and rusty square peg, and are looking for ways to fit it into a hole that requires shiny round pegs fabricated from a different material. In this case, it seems better to just construct a new shiny round peg if there's ever an excess of holes which require such a peg.

 

[GrimShady]

You are missing a very important point about what you perceive as the unwanted comments. In an engineering discussion (and many other classes of discussion), the opposing views are equally as important as the supporting views, sometimes they are even more important. If you make any attempt to block or silence the opposing views, you end up with an inferior discussion which fails to properly cover the topic.

Now, having said that, I'm not saying that the balance has been perfect in this thread so far. There may have been some physical abuse of deceased equines on both sides, although I offer no opinion on any specific post or poster. On both sides, just repeating the same point does not really achieve anything. Trying to discourage the negative posts at the level we are now seeing will very likely cause people who might have contributed something that you would consider useful to just not bother.

Now, on topic, I can see the motivation for exploring this idea, namely that there's a bunch of expensive and (formerly) high quality assets gently rusting away. My own opinion of it is that it's past the point in their life where it is likely to make sense. In many ways, you have a large and rusty square peg, and are looking for ways to fit it into a hole that requires shiny round pegs fabricated from a different material. In this case, it seems better to just construct a new shiny round peg if there's ever an excess of holes which require such a peg.

Murph. Thank you for your very logical post however I do fully understand you need a balanced argument otherwise there will never be any improvement. In order to better something you must first identify its negative aspects. I draw the line at "stupid thread/daft idea" as I don't see how that helps in anyway at all.

As I'm sure you're aware during the BR days they very often fully refurbished locos or converted them for other purposes. Weren't the 37s the same age roughly when they were refurbished? Another good example is the ETHELs. Obviously BR operated under very different circumstances than we have today. The conversion of the 73/9 for sleeper use seemed crazy at the time yet that went ahead for much older locos. 73/9s are RA 6, surely with a few modifications to a 25 year old RA7 loco would result in a superior machine with newer body work and more space for ETH equipment and hopefully could be made RA6 or RA5?. Is the sleeper timed for more than 60 mph on the Highland/WHL lines? Could a 60 be permitted to travel faster if fitted with yaw dampers/new bogies?

This was my thinking in saying would they have made a better basis for conversion. I still cant understand why they went for 79/3 when newly refurbished 37/4s would have been a better loco choice for power and RA.

 

[TimboM]

This was my thinking in saying would they have made a better basis for conversion. I still cant understand why they went for 79/3 when newly refurbished 37/4s would have been a better loco choice for power and RA.

There are no doubt (several) other threads on the 73/9 conversions which will have debated the pros and cons.

I would fully expect GBRf did a fair bit of work prior to bidding for the contract with/for Serco as to the best option all factors considered. I would have thought one of those factors would have been that they already owned "spare" Class 73s and - AFAIK - didn't/don't have any 37s, 67s (or for that matter 60s or 68s or any of the other options often suggested). i.e. if the best option was to completely re-engine / upgrade something, you may as well do it with suitable locos you have already, rather than buy others (and then have no use for the assets you already own).