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

[GrimShady]

Ive reading about all the redundant Class 60 locos lying about wih no work and it got me thinking. What would be involved in turning them into passenger locos. Obviously ETH would be needed and regearing but what else?

I doubt its impossible but would it be worth doing financially?

Still a good topic for conversation!

 

[GusB]

Ive reading about all the redundant Class 60 locos lying about wih no work and it got me thinking. What would be involved in turning them into passenger locos. Obviously ETH would be needed and regearing but what else?

Run them push-pull with 442s?

(Coat on, halfway down the road...)

 

[NSEFAN]

We've had threads about this before, it's generally not worth converting the locos even if it's possible. What we need at the moment is more DMUs for frequent-stop local services (for example, the FLIRT DMUs ordered for the Anglia franchise). Class 60s would not be suitable for this kind of work.

 

[GrimShady]

Wouldn't they have been a better choice for Caledonian Sleeper if the had been rebuilt.

 

[Bevan Price]

Now - sadly not worth the cost. Many of them have been neglected for far too long.

Ignoring cost, it might once have been feasible to re-gear them for higher speeds - but were the moving parts suitable for high speed running ? No idea myself - can anyone else comment.

They certainly had enough power to outpace a 47 - if they had been capable of reaching 100 mph without falling apart.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Many of them will probably have their engines well and truly seized up having not been used for a while (to the point where then engines would be considered write-offs?)

 

[randyrippley]

I guess you could fit them with the same bogies as a Class 92, but that would only get them up to 80mph
And then you'd need to provide hotel power somehow

 

[Topgun333]

Plenty of 67s waiting around for passenger work so why bother converting a freight diesel?

 

[Bertie the bus]

Wouldn't they have been a better choice for Caledonian Sleeper if the had been rebuilt.

Why? Because you like 60s better than 73s? A Type 5 diesel isn’t required to haul 5 carriages or whatever it is when the sleepers are split at Edinburgh. 60s are also not passed on the line to Fort William so not much use on the Caledonian Sleeper.

 

[GrimShady]

This is a hypothetical discussion. A fully rebuilt Class 60 wouldnt be a class 60 any more much like the 57s and would obviously have its ballast removed and possibly a new power unit which would mean its not a Type 5 any longer. Its RA would need to be reassessed.

 

[The Planner]

Might as well just build a new loco for all the work this would involve.

 

[jopsuk]

Definitely in the "physically possible but financially unfeasible" category

 

[DarloRich]

Definitely in the "physically possible but financially unfeasible" category

this - and completely pointless!

 

[GrimShady]

Not really. Its been done before woth the 57s. Its also not uncommon to reengine a loco.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Its common practice in the US...

 

[D365]

Not really. Its been done before woth the 57s. Its also not uncommon to reengine a loco.

The Class 47 were mixed-traffic locomotives from the outset. The Class 60s are worlds apart from it.

 

[CosherB]

What a daft thread. Got the blinkers on and cannot see what is happening in reality. :roll:

 

[43096]

What a daft thread. Got the blinkers on and cannot see what is happening in reality. :roll:

In fairness there are plenty of other such threads in a similar vein.

 

[D365]

What a daft thread. Got the blinkers on and cannot see what is happening in reality. :roll:

In fairness there are plenty of other such threads in a similar vein.

So it's only right to join in

 

[GrimShady]

What a daft thread. Got the blinkers on and cannot see what is happening in reality. :roll:

Its a hypothetical thread! Reality isnt really involved. There are many hypothetical threads on here regarding conversions including freight/parcels HSTs & 442s. If you feel its daft then feel free not to contribute.

I more interested in the technical aspects including body work.

 

[D365]

I more interested in the technical aspects including body work.

There aren't any technical aspects because it's not been proposed. If reality isn't involved, as you say, then you might as well fuel it with pixie dust!

 

[GrimShady]

There aren't any technical aspects because it's not been proposed. If reality isn't involved, as you say, then you might as well fuel it with pixie dust!

So its beyond the imagination of some board members. One would have said the ex tube stock conversations was mad yet it was done.

 

[CosherB]

Its a hypothetical thread! Reality isnt really involved. There are many hypothetical threads on here regarding conversions including freight/parcels HSTs & 442s. If you feel its daft then feel free not to contribute.

I more interested in the technical aspects including body work.

So let's turn a Land Rover into an Aston Martin.

 

[D365]

One would have said the ex tube stock conversations was mad yet it was done.

Firstly, it's not tube stock, and secondly, that was a passenger stock to passenger stock conversion.

Are you suggesting we should have converted the Class 58s to passenger locomotives rather than having ordered the Class 67s?

 

[GrimShady]

Im not suggesting anything apart from Class 60s which is the nature of this topic. If you have nothing positive to contribute to the thread then please feel free to stay out.

 

[CosherB]

Im not suggesting anything apart from Class 60s which is the nature of this topic. If you have nothing positive to contribute to the thread then please feel free to stay out.

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.

 

[Bertie the bus]

This is a hypothetical discussion. A fully rebuilt Class 60 wouldnt be a class 60 any more much like the 57s and would obviously have its ballast removed and possibly a new power unit which would mean its not a Type 5 any longer. Its RA would need to be reassessed.

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.

 

[najaB]

There are many hypothetical threads on here regarding conversions including freight/parcels HSTs...

This one has, apparently, moved from being a hypothetical to a real possibility.

 

[broadgage]

For the reasons already given by numerous members, the conversion of class 60s to passenger locos is most unlikely.
Not actually impossible given enough money and effort, but most unlikely.


Also in addition to the reasons already given, there seems to be a general view in the rail industry that loco haulage of passenger trains is old fashioned, or perhaps too good for todays railway, and therefore is only to be considered on a limited scale or under special conditions.
The future is short DMUs, not "proper trains"

Consider for example the various plans to convert 442s into loco hauled stock some were no doubt well thought out, but the railway industry in general does not want loco hauled coaches. The industry wants short DMUs.

 

[TimboM]

Wouldn't they have been a better choice for Caledonian Sleeper if the had been rebuilt.

Given GBRf identified an old loco type (Class 73) and effectively re-built the 'insides' specifically for North of Edinburgh sleeper services - and given they almost certainly considered numerous options in the process - I think it's safe to say the answer is: no, Class 60s wouldn't have been a better choice.

You don't need huge amounts of power as the rakes North of Edinburgh are shorter, but what's more important is something with a low enough RA for the highland routes that can negotiate the tight bends and various bridges with weight limits.