The class 68s have a greater mass don't they - sounds to me then they won't be as good as 67s for breaking?
I am sure the 68s will break just as much as the 67s do.
I dont think the braking on the 68s will be as good as the 67s though!
The class 68s have a greater mass don't they - sounds to me then they won't be as good as 67s for breaking?
A 67 is exempt from the additional light loco roles. You can do 125mph light loco where line speed permits.
Could be that's it's the total cost of the contract to Chiltern across an extended period of time: Say 6 locos funded for five years for £15 million = £0.5 million per loco per year.
I am sure the 68s will break just as much as the 67s do.
I dont think the braking on the 68s will be as good as the 67s though!
The only advantage of the 68s is the horsepower. I'm sure they'll get to linespeed faster. But nothing can beat the reliability of the 67.
Why is that? Are the brakes much better on 67s ?
No, the 68s are five tonnes lighter than the 67s.The class 68s have a greater mass don't they
Is it nothing to do with the unreliability of the class 67s as to why the Chiltern loco-hauled sets remain at, or near to, the bottom of any published reliability tables, then?But nothing can beat the reliability of the 67.
So Chiltern are committing to use an untried loco type still to be cleared to run on NR?
67s must be poor performers if they are going to be ditched in this way.
The lease renewal cost would be bargain basement as there is no other work for them.
And DB (Arriva) has maintenance facilites at LNWR Crewe but is not using them?
Very odd.
Class 68 - 65.2 tons braking force. http://www.railway-centre.com/class-68.html
If that is the case I would imagine that they will have to have at least 5 vehicles and Mk3's at that behind them to be permitted to doo 100mph on the Chiltern Mainline. A lot of work needs to be done by Chiltern to upgrade their safety policy on their LHCS. 68 tonnes of brakekforce is pretty good but not anything like the class 67's.
Why so? The 87s had 40t brake force and were thundering up and down the WCML at 110MPH.
EDIT: and if the brake force is the same on a production PC as the prototype then it has more brake force than an HST power car.
Is it nothing to do with the unreliability of the class 67s as to why the Chiltern loco-hauled sets remain at, or near to, the bottom of any published reliability tables, then?
Why so? The 87s had 40t brake force and were thundering up and down the WCML at 110MPH.
EDIT: and if the brake force is the same on a production PC as the prototype then it has more brake force than an HST power car.
Because they hauled longer trains. In general, more vehicles = more brake force.Why so? The 87s had 40t brake force and were thundering up and down the WCML at 110MPH.
CHILTERN Railways has agreed a deal to lease six new 100mph diesel locomotives for services linking Bicester and Banbury with London and Birmingham.
It said their haulage capabilities meant extra coaches could be added to Mainline Silver trains if passenger numbers continued to grow.
The Class 68s will be sub-leased from freight train operator Direct Rail services, which has 15 of the 3,750-horsepower locomotives on order. They will replace 12-year-old Class 67s hired from Chilterns sister company DB Schenker.
These have been used on the Mainline Silver express trains and queue-buster rush-hour commuter trains between Banbury and London since 2010.
The first Class 68 to arrive in the UK is undergoing tests, with another on trial at a rail technology centre in the Czech Republic.
They will be delivered this autumn for driver training and are expected to enter service in December. Chiltern managing director Rob Brighouse said: It allows us to prepare for future expansion as demand for our line increases.
Why so? The 87s had 40t brake force and were thundering up and down the WCML at 110MPH.
EDIT: and if the brake force is the same on a production PC as the prototype then it has more brake force than an HST power car.
I don't think anyone meant any personal insult, but as I'm sure you're aware there are one or two trolls on the Internet - so people on a forum are naturally sceptical of new people who announce 'big news'.
Stick around, join in, get to know some of the regulars - you might have fun!
Not with only 5 coaches they wern't
Why are they unreliable ? 67's have exactly the same mechanical parts as a 66, and no locomotive beats the reliability of a 66. Maybe DMU's are just more reliable even compared to the most reliable locomotive. Multiple units are so reliable as if something fails on one car there are always the other cars to keep it moving.
Not quite!
I think the main problem with the 67's is the electronics as its Spanish that is also old tech and more than abit useless.
The 67 also uses the old EMD '645' V12 unit which was a "hand me down" unit from the U.S and was previously used before being rebuilt for the 67's, the same is true for the 57's! Its bassicly a lump dating from its first introduction from 1965! (the 645 denotes 645 cubic inches per cylinder, EMD use the imperial numbering system on all their power units). The V12 645 unit, although very good in its day does drink fuel, one reason being is the fact it has old tech mechanical injection. EMD also used to make a V20 of this engine which really was a beast!
The 66 on the other hand uses the later and more fuel efficient '710'G V12 which uses electronic fuel injection aswel as tried and tested EMD electronics in the traction package. That's why the 66 is so reliable.
67s are 710 power units - which are notoriously bad at providing ETH to add to the issues. GM power units get worse as they progress - you'd never break anything with a 567 in it...
I'm not sure about '...notoriously bad at providing ETH...', what I do remember of their first year of operation was that we were banned from using ETH/ETS/HEP at stations and in the PRDC because of the dreadful screaming and howling that they produced when it was selected
I'm not sure about '...notoriously bad at providing ETH...', what I do remember of their first year of operation was that we were banned from using ETH/ETS/HEP at stations and in the PRDC because of the dreadful screaming and howling that they produced when it was selected
Would the extra cost of hireing brand new 68 s outweigh the extra cost of excessive fuel consumpton
Did the 67's ever run at 125 mph in revenue earning service as promised under Evergreen
1/2 ? . Seems as if we are now exchanging 125 mph max locos for 100 mph locos albeit with fuel savings. I thought the Class 170 DMU's were capable of 125 mph in theory.
Unless the rules have been considerably altered 170's cannot be run at 125mph, assuming they were actually capable of it, because of the lack of safety for passengers, a crumple zone, or whatever you want to call it, would have to extend to at least the first set of doors, if not further, leaving virtually no room to actually carry passengers