Uses for redundant Class 67s.

[snakeeyes]

Very few. The majority of the Loco Hauled Mk3s left in store are owned by DB Schenker, baring the odd few in store around the network - Who owns the former Greater Anglia Mk3 in store in Barrow Hill? The rest if any are left are former HST Vehicles, although the FGW Conversions have taken most of the former Virgin HST TRSB left in store.

So there is no coaching stock available, no MK11 ?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

So there is no coaching stock available, no MK11 ?

If anyone is desperate for some Mk 2s and is good at jigsaw puzzles, they may be able to find a supplier of the pieces in Rotherham...

 

[alexl92]

Could I just ask. Does anyone actually sleep on here? Or is everyone up commenting all night lol?

I'm often up late... that's usually when my deepest thoughts come to me!

Well said. There are only two major down sides to the 60's. One the 60mph top speed limits the range of traffic flow they are suitable for to tanks and stone. Two they are of an old and non-standard design and need replacing as soon as there is a viable replacement. Still have a higher haulage capacity then a 66.

There are 100 60s in existence... That's nothing in comparison to the 66s I know, and not all of them are in service, but considering there are only 30 class 70s, 30 Class 67s, 25 (I think) class 68s and 15 Class 59s, that still makes them a little more standard than the newer classes!

 

[BestWestern]

I make it 96, the power cars are not standard Mk.3.

True! I suppose we could discount the driving trailers too...

 

[CosherB]

I agree that EWS's vision of an all 66 fleet was lacking. But at the time Wisconsin Central bought what would become EWS, they were faced with an absolutely knackered loco fleet. The only options available really were 66's and 59's. They would have been better going for an all Class 59 fleet and covering all their bases in one. EWS was never really financially stable thanks to the (excuse me here ex BR chaps, im really sorry) scrap iron they inherited. It forced them to sell to Canadian National. The 60's are my age and although im not old at all, im showing the same signs of decay as the 60's.

Oh dont get me started on ancient DMU's. I live in a Pacer area and Im not prepaired for a rant like that.

I feel really aweful calling the old BR locos scrap iron but its true. But, I love heritage traction.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Could I just ask. Does anyone actually sleep on here? Or is everyone up commenting all night lol?

For someone that thinks that the future of intermodal freight haulage in this country is a pair of HST power cars, I'll take your opinions of the Class 60 with a pinch of salt. Whether you consider EWS being created in 1995 or 1996, the Class 60's were between 2 and 7 years old. Does that constitute "knackered"? And aren't there Class 59's that are 4 years older than a Class 60? I also suggest that more homework is required to fully understand what is actually involved in the "Super 60" upgrades.

 

[paulclass43]

For someone that thinks that the future of intermodal freight haulage in this country is a pair of HST power cars, I'll take your opinions of the Class 60 with a pinch of salt. Whether you consider EWS being created in 1995 or 1996, the Class 60's were between 2 and 7 years old. Does that constitute "knackered"? And aren't there Class 59's that are 4 years older than a Class 60? I also suggest that more homework is required to fully understand what is actually involved in the "Super 60" upgrades.

Can you please point out were I said that HST powercars are the future of intermodal freight in the UK, I would love to know where I said such a crazy thing. If you are going to poo-poo someone's idea make sure you know what the idea is first please. I see pairs of powercars as an emergency measure when there nothing else available to avoid business been turned away. Pairs of powercars are better then nothing and would serve as an admittedly unsuitable stop gap until new locos could be procured. And considering the positive email I received from GBRF last night. They maybe merit in the idea whether you see it or not.

Now. There is no need to be rude to me because you disagree with my idea. That kind of thing is best left to the school playground. Now, are you going to be grown up enough to apologise or not?

If you read what little information is available about the super 60 upgrade. Firstly it wasn't an upgrade it was an overhaul. Secondly two locomotives were chosen to test new wiring and I beleive a single mechanical alteration. Nothing really super about it. IThe sound like you are a class 60 fan and I seem to have struck a raw nerve. No I wouldn't say they were knackered back then they are now though they're falling to bits and that's quite normal considering the hard life they've had. They live on borrowed time. Just like powercars unfunfortunately. And no that's not a suggestion that we replace 60's with powercars.

There is a fundamental difference between 59, 66, 67's and that is Common components. More or less the same locomotives underneath just tweaked and not always for the better. They can be considered a standard group vs class. Whereas in the DBS fleet the Class 60's are truly none standard. Lone rangers even. I can't see parts for a 66 or a 67 been compatible with those Mirlees engines or those Brush Traction motors.

I take my hat off to the class 60. They were brilliant in their day. Britain's railways like everywhere in Europe has moved on. We need something betteReally, but in the mean time just have to fix "Super 60" and make do.

 

[Ash Bridge]

Can you please point out were I said that HST powercars are the future of intermodal freight in the UK, I would love to know where I said such a crazy thing. If you are going to poo-poo someone's idea make sure you know what the idea is first please. I see pairs of powercars as an emergency measure when there nothing else available to avoid business been turned away. Pairs of powercars are better then nothing and would serve as an admittedly unsuitable stop gap until new locos could be procured. And considering the positive email I received from GBRF last night. They maybe merit in the idea whether you see it or not.

Now. There is no need to be rude to me because you disagree with my idea. That kind of thing is best left to the school playground. Now, are you going to be grown up enough to apologise or not?

If you read what little information is available about the super 60 upgrade. Firstly it wasn't an upgrade it was an overhaul. Secondly two locomotives were chosen to test new wiring and I beleive a single mechanical alteration. Nothing really super about it. IThe sound like you are a class 60 fan and I seem to have struck a raw nerve. No I wouldn't say they were knackered back then they are now though they're falling to bits and that's quite normal considering the hard life they've had. They live on borrowed time. Just like powercars unfunfortunately. And no that's not a suggestion that we replace 60's with powercars.

There is a fundamental difference between 59, 66, 67's and that is Common components. More or less the same locomotives underneath just tweaked and not always for the better. They can be considered a standard group vs class. Whereas in the DBS fleet the Class 60's are truly none standard. Lone rangers even. I can't see parts for a 66 or a 67 been compatible with those Mirlees engines or those Brush Traction motors.

I take my hat off to the class 60. They were brilliant in their day. Britain's railways like everywhere in Europe has moved on. We need something betteReally, but in the mean time just have to fix "Super 60" and make do.

May I ask a question? Do you also consider the class 59s as "knackered"?

 

[sprinterguy]

No I wouldn't say they were knackered back then they are now though they're falling to bits and that's quite normal considering the hard life they've had. They live on borrowed time.

I would suggest that is more as a result of shoddy maintenance practices on the part of EWS and DB Schenker, who switched off a large number of these relatively complex machines with their modern electronics and for the main part left them standing outside exposed to the elements. A heavy freight locomotive that has been well maintained and used in regular service should not be considered life expired at 25 years old (And, on a light-hearted note, if you are feeling signs of decay at the same age then may I suggest you see a doctor? I’m of the same age and, quite frankly, I’m at the top of my game ).

The 60s are only on borrowed time due to the general downturn in freight traffic and the fact that DB Schenker seem to be losing traffic hand over fist to their competitors, so have more modern (but not necessarily more suitable) locos that they lease rather than own to spare. In terms of control systems I thought it was generally opined amongst drivers that class 60s are a more advanced machine than the basic class 66s.

 

[87019Chris]

Without the 60's DBS own they would loose business as someone else would be able to haul the longer heavier trains with the 60's. Look at Colas they were sold 60's from DBS and then they stole the work those 60's did off DBS so in the long run DBS have lost out twice. They no longer have as many of the loco's capable of the work and then they lost the work they could have used them on on the first place.
The 60's are in a way 'non standard' :roll: as the rest of DB's Diesel fleet shunter's excepted is GM not brush. However it does not mean that they are not Capable of being used. DBS have mechanics & Engineers that are trained and can overhaul them look at Colas and the 60's they currently use. All of which have been reasonably reliable. Age is but just a number if they can haul a train and do it well they can haul a train, drivers don't complain about them and the only people who may complain about them are the accountants, but they cant replace them as that would cost even more and give DBS a bigger headache.

As for the 67's they were built for Mail trains, but EWS got greedy and royal mail told them to shove it (as far as I'm aware). After they lost the contract they have been spare not used as they should. Even the sleeper duties they currently do they had to be modified (cast Iron Brake Blocks?) the 67's are outcast's they aren't perfect for much which means DBS will have to offer them cheaply to get more work for them, good for rail passengers bringing the cost of Loco hauled trains down but they could just be piled up next to the 60's in Toton soon....

 

[paulclass43]

May I ask a question? Do you also consider the class 59s as "knackered"?

No as they are far easier to get parts for been of almost identical design to the 66's and internal to the 67 too. I'm not just thinking about agage I'm thinking of multiple aspects.

 

[Ash Bridge]

No as they are far easier to get parts for been of almost identical design to the 66's and internal to the 67 too. I'm not just thinking about agage I'm thinking of multiple aspects.

But the 60s manufacturer (Brush) is still alive and well in Loughborough, also MAN Diesels still have an engine maintenance facility on the site of the Mirrlees plant at Stockport, so major parts shouldn't be a problem?

 

[paulclass43]

Without the 60's DBS own they would loose business as someone else would be able to haul the longer heavier trains with the 60's. Look at Colas they were sold 60's from DBS and then they stole the work those 60's did off DBS so in the long run DBS have lost out twice. They no longer have as many of the loco's capable of the work and then they lost the work they could have used them on on the first place.
The 60's are in a way 'non standard' :roll: as the rest of DB's Diesel fleet shunter's excepted is GM not brush. However it does not mean that they are not Capable of being used. DBS have mechanics & Engineers that are trained and can overhaul them look at Colas and the 60's they currently use. All of which have been reasonably reliable. Age is but just a number if they can haul a train and do it well they can haul a train, drivers don't complain about them and the only people who may complain about them are the accountants, but they cant replace them as that would cost even more and give DBS a bigger headache.

As for the 67's they were built for Mail trains, but EWS got greedy and royal mail told them to shove it (as far as I'm aware). After they lost the contract they have been spare not used as they should. Even the sleeper duties they currently do they had to be modified (cast Iron Brake Blocks?) the 67's are outcast's they aren't perfect for much which means DBS will have to offer them cheaply to get more work for them, good for rail passengers bringing the cost of Loco hauled trains down but they could just be piled up next to the 60's in Toton soon....

Colas didn't steal business. DBS like EWS before them are greedy buggers and lost traffic through fair competition. The customer is always gunna go for the cheapest option. Colas was the better option on cost. Yes the engineers are doing a brilliant job at keeping them going. But I can see them having to start cannibalising locos to keep the rest going which is gunna loose DBS more work to Freightliner mainly As their 70 out tug a tug. No by much but they do.

Yes DBS would be stuck without the 60's, thats why I pointed out they are making do until a manufacturer comes up with a new heavy freight locomotive. The only one as fat as I can see that DBS could order straight away is the Voith Maxima but since they are diesel hydraulic they won't get a look in. Way too none standard.

I like the 67's but your right. Hopefully they'll move to another FOC when they go off lease. Hopefully who ever takes them will find out what they are really capable of vs what they are designed to do. I found out a couple weeks ago that all but 2 are now permanently restricted to 100mph. So why not regear them to 100mph and increase their capabilities?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But the 60s manufacturer (Brush) is still alive and well in Loughborough, also MAN Diesels still have an engine maintenance facility on the site of the Mirrlees plant at Stockport, so major parts shouldn't be a problem?

Why would Brush and MAN go to the expense of manufacturing parts just for the 60's? I might be wrong here but I'm assuming brush and MAN are just reconditioning part for the 60's instead of manufacturing new ones.

 

[87019Chris]

Colas didn't steal business. DBS like EWS before them are greedy buggers and lost traffic through fair competition. The customer is always gunna go for the cheapest option. Colas was the better option on cost. Yes the engineers are doing a brilliant job at keeping them going. But I can see them having to start cannibalising locos to keep the rest going which is gunna loose DBS more work to Freightliner mainly As their 70 out tug a tug. No by much but they do.

Yes DBS would be stuck without the 60's, thats why I pointed out they are making do until a manufacturer comes up with a new heavy freight locomotive. The only one as fat as I can see that DBS could order straight away is the Voith Maxima but since they are diesel hydraulic they won't get a look in. Way too none standard.

I like the 67's but your right. Hopefully they'll move to another FOC when they go off lease. Hopefully who ever takes them will find out what they are really capable of vs what they are designed to do. I found out a couple weeks ago that all but 2 are now permanently restricted to 100mph. So why not regear them to 100mph and increase their capabilities?

- When I say steal I don't use it in the terms they broke into an office and held people to at gun point, till they signed a contract but the work was just taken from DBS because they were better value, DBS have to cut prices for contracts or they will loose out. like this.

- As said by someone else both Mirrlees and Brush are still going and capable of maintaining without cannibalising loco's. Unless DBS are being tight and not paying for new parts.

- They can't buy New Heavy duty Loco's due to Emission Regs and Cost. They have to wait till after Electrification has happened so they can buy Electric Loco's. And by the way you describe everything that's not GM as none standard any reason why? Look at DRS have such a none standard fleet and it still works.

- Also the 67's are unlikely to be taken by a FOC, as they are pretty much useless as a freight loco. They are more likely to be taken on as part of a TOC with stock, or in a spot hire market. Also the cost of re-gearing them is massive and would be not cost efficient. Also I am unaware that they have been restricted to 100mph, I know 67004/7/9/11 are restricted to 80mph for the sleepers.

 

[BestWestern]

Surely the last thing that DBS want to do is take on yet more brand new locomotives, already being stuck with far too many of their existing classes?! If the 60s can be made reliable enough to be a viable medium term part of the fleet, which certainly seems a reasonable enough prospect, then it surely makes way more sense just to use them. Considering there is some very elderly stuff still being fettled to keep it in frontine service by comparatively tiny operators elsewhere (20s, 31s, 37s, 47s, 56s...) it doesn't seem beyond the wit of a massive organisation like DBS to be able to keep a fleet of much newer (and substantially underused don't forget) class 60s alive and well. They have an almost endless supply of spare parts, and would be able to run with a generous float of serviceable spare locos if they wanted to be super cautious. It always seemed to me that EWS had a shockingly wasteful approach - even if much of their inherited was only fit for scrap, then get on and scrap it! - with depots and yards filled for years and years with rusting hulks. The stuff that needed cutting up seldom seemed to make it to the scrapyard, and anything that might have been worth using sat slowly decaying. Appallingly poor fleet management, and it seems that now their predocessor is finally sifting through what is left and starting to do something constructive with it.

 

[Trainfan344]

Intercity EMU's are the way forward for GEML and have been prefered for a long time.
5 car 444 type units with 110mph top speed, AC traction motors. The good thing with units is off peak trains which are generally quieter.
For example:a peak morning Norwich -London is extremely busy, run as 10,car, at London front portion works off peak to Norwich and back, the couples up to unit in London to form a 10 car peak service back to Norwich.

It sounds mad but actually for a line like the GEML that would work and with EMU's having superior acceleration it would be able to speed up journey times.

I point you to many threads that show this isn't suitable! Problem is while some journeys would cope with a 5 car EMU, the next service for that unit would require a 10 car EMU, but you've left the other 5 cars down in London so you get full and standing passengers even more fed up than they are now. The GEML is not a lot quieter in the off-peaks, on more than one occasion I've seen people standing in the vestibules of an off-peak service...

 

[Chris125]

And considering the positive email I received from GBRF last night. They maybe merit in the idea whether you see it or not.

This is one situation where it's safe to say there is no merit in the idea, I'm not quite sure what you were expecting in reply from GBRf but it sounds like a perfectly professional response to a rail enthusiast but one which shouldn't have anything read into it whatsoever.

 

[fgwrich]

But the 60s manufacturer (Brush) is still alive and well in Loughborough, also MAN Diesels still have an engine maintenance facility on the site of the Mirrlees plant at Stockport, so major parts shouldn't be a problem?

I will say one point about the both Brush and MAN Diesel & Turbo / Mirrlees Blackstone business though. MAN were until the latter end of the last decade not very well known for their backing up and support side - It is one of the reasons why the MTU V16 4000 won over Angel Trains as opposed to the rival upgraded VP185. Only is it over the past few years and with more stabilisation and organisation from Volkswagen have MAN paid a far greater deal more of attention to the support side of the business. Their support levels were known to be almost non existent around the Alstom era. As for the Stockport facility, that isn't as big as it used to be with part of the site demolished and replaced with a new office and warehouse facility which now provides the aftermarket spares and servicing of Lister Blackstone engines under the now called MAN Diesel & Turbo name.

Brush Wabtec as they now are I shouldn't see any problem in working with - They seem to keep their records and have helped groups such as the 125group with the restoration of 41001 with details of wiring diagrams etc.

So in part, it wouldn't surprise me that the reasons for EWS / DBS cannibalising some of their 60s was to provide spares and replacement parts not available at the time from MB / MAN D&T and because of EWS's known 'penny pinching' of the maintenance budgets - which given the way DBS & EWS has operated for a number of years wouldn't surprise me - I'd happy to be corrected but...

As for the 67s. Wouldn't the first place for them to end up back if DBS don't find much of a use for them be back with Angel Trains to decide? Though I wouldn't want to be Angel trying to find uses for them if DBS which cheap contract offers cannot. Certainly agree with the above post though, EWS ordered them on the back of the crest of the Mail Contract, only to see it disappear just as fast underneath them. Perhaps, it is also why DRS have been fairly cautious with the ordering of the 68s, ordering just 15 before securing further contracts for the class? It would certainly be interesting to see if DRS do take the Royal Train jobs as suggested above, that would take another 3 DBS 67s out.

 

[whhistle]

That's very interesting, certainly more than I knew about the 60s.

I just assumed the newer a loco was, the more bhp, grunt it has.
Clearly not... feel like the 67's were a waste of building really.

 

[jimm]

I point you to many threads that show this isn't suitable! Problem is while some journeys would cope with a 5 car EMU, the next service for that unit would require a 10 car EMU, but you've left the other 5 cars down in London so you get full and standing passengers even more fed up than they are now. The GEML is not a lot quieter in the off-peaks, on more than one occasion I've seen people standing in the vestibules of an off-peak service...

Do you really think it is beyond the wit and imagination of TOCs to diagram stock to match demand? Look at the way FGW uses its 180s - almost all their work is contra-peak, with probably a couple of trains, the 15.52 Paddington-Worcester and 17.18 Paddington-Oxford semi-fast, that really need something bigger but with fewer HST available due to the overhauls programme that's not an option for the moment.

It may be the case that south of Ipswich or Colchester you might need a 10-car formation much of the time, but all the way to and from Norwich on every off-peak train? I doubt it. And that's why successive operators on the route have wanted units instead of locos and coaches - to give them some flexibility.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I just assumed the newer a loco was, the more bhp, grunt it has.
Clearly not... feel like the 67's were a waste of building really.

I don't think EWS was expecting Royal Mail to pull the plug on most of its postal and parcels services at the time the 67s were ordered - and the 47s were showing their age by then so some new locos probably looked like a good idea at the time. And if they hadn't been built, what would Chiltern have been using to boost its capacity in recent years? What would have worked the Scottish sleepers?

 

[CC 72100]

And if they hadn't been built, what would Chiltern have been using to boost its capacity in recent years? What would have worked the Scottish sleepers?

More 57s

 

[paulclass43]

I just assumed the newer a loco was, the more bhp, grunt it has.
Clearly not... feel like the 67's were a waste of building really.

A more accurate measurements of haulage capacity is tractive effort. Tractive effort is the sum of many aspects of a locomotive. Motor Torque, Hp, Weight on drivers, wheel arrangement, transmission efficiency, gearing, and a few other aspects too.

HP at rail is more a measure at the speed a locomotive can haul a given load at a set tractive effort.

For example. When DRS Class 88's are introduced they will be able to haul a 2000 tonne intermodal service at 100mph, providing that a capable wagon is produced. However, on last mile diesels they will be able to haul that same 2000 tonne intermodal but at only 15-20mph. The tractive effort will remain the same but the HP is reduced.

That's only a general guide though as with increased HP comes increase energy transfer to the train and increased capacity. But not to the same extent as increased tractive effort.

Another example is the 60's themselves. Big tractive effort for heavy trains but low HP so only a 60 mph top speed Even with an empty train. The problem with that low speed is that the 60's block more paths with empty trains then would a 75mph class 70 for example.

 

[CosherB]

A more accurate measurements of haulage capacity is tractive effort. Tractive effort is the sum of many aspects of a locomotive. Motor Torque, Hp, Weight on drivers, wheel arrangement, transmission efficiency, gearing, and a few other aspects too.

HP at rail is more a measure at the speed a locomotive can haul a given load at a set tractive effort.

For example. When DRS Class 88's are introduced they will be able to haul a 2000 tonne intermodal service at 100mph, providing that a capable wagon is produced. However, on last mile diesels they will be able to haul that same 2000 tonne intermodal but at only 15-20mph. The tractive effort will remain the same but the HP is reduced.

That's only a general guide though as with increased HP comes increase energy transfer to the train and increased capacity. But not to the same extent as increased tractive effort.

Another example is the 60's themselves. Big tractive effort for heavy trains but low HP so only a 60 mph top speed Even with an empty train. The problem with that low speed is that the 60's block more paths with empty trains then would a 75mph class 70 for example.

Class 60: 3100 hp
Class 66: 3300 hp
Class 70: 3700 hp

So a Class 60 is 'low' horsepower?

And don't go on about the top speed of a Class 60, you'll get differing opinions on here! lol

 

[paulclass43]

This is one situation where it's safe to say there is no merit in the idea, I'm not quite sure what you were expecting in reply from GBRf but it sounds like a perfectly professional response to a rail enthusiast but one which shouldn't have anything read into it whatsoever.

Actually Ive since had a phone call from GBRF to tell me they had already considered using powercars. However it was deemed cost prohibitive to regear them and fit buffers. So im not crazy aftel all (I knew I wasnt ive been tested). Validation for weird ideas is a welcome thing, even is it doent work out. I would like to apologise for my slightly militant attitude on the subject. Bipolar disorder is a bit of a bugger. When im on a downer nobody but me is right and nobody elses opinions matter. Im on good form today however.
On a happier note for anyone interested. Grand Central HST's are been investigated for potential use as a go anywhere High Speed Parcels Unit when they are relese from GC. Im not sure how GBRF are going to acheive that considering the GC powercars are going to Scotrail and will probably be with them until around 2021. By which time they will be absolutely knackered from bashing the Highland Mainline everyday and sent straight to the scrap yard.

 

[Techniquest]

HSTs manage the South Devon banks every day with no problem, same for the Highland Main Line. XC HSTs take on the Lickey (albeit with a good bit of speed first!) and they're not knackered. There's also some other decent banks on the XC routes, after all the climb out of Birmingham heading north goes up quite a bit. Can't remember the rest off the top of my head!

I'd say the HSTs will be having a bit of a relaxed retirement on the Inverness to Aberdeen route, compared to the hard work they're currently doing!

 

[paulclass43]

Class 60: 3100 hp
Class 66: 3300 hp
Class 70: 3700 hp

So a Class 60 is 'low' horsepower?

And don't go on about the top speed of a Class 60, you'll get differing opinions on here! lol

I take a locomotive at its at rail horsepower, the horsepower than it can actually use. As you'll know already a hell of a lot of power is lost between the engine and the rail. Thermal inefficiency is the biggest killer of horsepower. Then theres electrical resistance, mechanical friction between everymoving parts, innefficiency inherant in all internal combustion engines, transmission loss, alternator inefficiency and I'm sure alot of other contributing factors.

Im not sure about the Mirlees engine of a Class 60. But the burning of diesel fuel in A Paxman Valenta 12RP200L actually put out close to 4,474Kw/6000hp of energy, but 3,750hp is lost to thermal and machanical inefficiency before its even made available to the transmission giving an engine output of 2,250bhp and then, post transmission and ETH of course only 1,770arhp. Horses bolt quickly when the stable doors are left open.

A more accurate Idea would be.

Class 60: 2,415arhp, 60mph gearing
Class 59: 2,533arhp, 60mph or 75mph gearing.
Class 66: 3,000arhp, 65mph or 75mph gearing.
Class 70: Can't find the at rail horsepower. Anyone know?
Class 68: 3,300arhp. (I only added because of their superior haulage capacity vs a 75mph 66).
Class 67: 2,500arhp in freight mode and 2,100arhp in passenger mode thanks to ETH loss. (I though before that they only had 2,000arhp in passenger mode but after a little digging I stand corrected).

On paper a 66/6 should be the best, if it wasn't for the fact that they slip like mad and leave enough sand behind to top up Bridlington beach. Okay maybe a little exageration there, but when I was doing my P-Way maintenance training I was told about 66/6's dumping sand into S+C and jamming the switch blades.

If I was to rank them in order of haulage capacity i would do so as follows.

Lowest.
Class 67 (By a long way).
Class 66 standard.
Class 66/6.
Class 68.
Class 60.
Class 59/2.
Class 59/0 and Class 59/1.
Class 70.
Highest.

The above list is controversial and i'm sure i'm gunna get some stick for it. LOL.

Haha, Im sure that I would indeed get differing opinions on the top speed of a tug. Im sure there are some sneaky, gutsy, or just plane brilliant drivers that push them above their paper top speed. Naughty drivers. HEHE.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

HSTs manage the South Devon banks every day with no problem, same for the Highland Main Line. XC HSTs take on the Lickey (albeit with a good bit of speed first!) and they're not knackered. There's also some other decent banks on the XC routes, after all the climb out of Birmingham heading north goes up quite a bit. Can't remember the rest off the top of my head!

I'd say the HSTs will be having a bit of a relaxed retirement on the Inverness to Aberdeen route, compared to the hard work they're currently doing!

Perhaps is it easier then some of the climbs then get upto today but by 2021, they are gunna be 45 years old when they were only built as a stop gap.

Now as "Cosherb" knows , I practicaly worship the HST but I think that by 2021 even the HST will be ready to go. I know there are plenty of much older locos still going strong but they were built like tanks to last years and years and years, were as the HST was only designed to be in service for a decade or so, before been dissplaced by the APT and other electrics. So they've already proved that they are capaple of doing far more then they are designed to do. I very much doubt they will be any good after 2021 unless Scotrail rebuild them again and give them another life extension, but thats highly unlikely as the cost would be massive and only give maybe another 5 years. Sadly nothing last forever.

 

[Ash Bridge]

You state "there are plenty of much older locos still going strong but they were built like tanks to last years and years" etc. assume you refer to 47s, (47-53 years old) 37s, (similar age, 20s, (47-58 years) yet regarding the relatively modern class 60 (25 years old) you tell us they are "knackered", I just don't understand your logic there?

 

[Emblematic]

The Scotrail franchise agreement specifies 27 HST sets to be in service to December 2025. I don't see anything that would prevent that happening, once the IEP replacements start to arrive there will be plenty of spares donors to keep the remaining fleet running.
The last of the 43 re-engine and rebuilds was only completed 5 years ago.

 

[paulclass43]

The Scotrail franchise agreement specifies 27 HST sets to be in service to December 2025. I don't see anything that would prevent that happening, once the IEP replacements start to arrive there will be plenty of spares donors to keep the remaining fleet running.
The last of the 43 re-engine and rebuilds was only completed 5 years ago.

True. However, my limit of 2021 assumes the likely scenario of Class 222's been transferred to Scotrail as a more suitable replacement for the HST once the wires go up north of Bedford. Not the engines that will hold them back, its structural problems due to corrosion. They're already seeing problems are are becoming harder and harder to keep in one peice.

Personally, I feel sorry for all those who travel on a 222 or and member of the Voyager family. I hate them.

 

[Boothby97]

Im not sure how GBRF are going to acheive that considering the GC powercars are going to Scotrail and will probably be with them until around 2021.

I thought it hadn't been confirmed where Scotrail would be getting their HSTs from (I actually thought they'd be from FGW)?

 

[paulclass43]

You state "there are plenty of much older locos still going strong but they were built like tanks to last years and years" etc. assume you refer to 47s, (47-53 years old) 37s, (similar age, 20s, (47-58 years) yet regarding the relatively modern class 60 (25 years old) you tell us they are "knackered", I just don't understand your logic there?

I see 60's knackered for a modern railway where we need faster locos. 60's only 60mph. As has been said i'll probably evoke some controversy there. Plus as I said when I'm on a downer nobody is right but me.

If it wasn't for the 60's lower top speed, Id totally agree they could go for years. The 60's are victims of typical short-termism that is unfortunately still rife. They are a specialist locomotive for heavy haul work. I would say that right now, every freight loco needs to be able to regularly work at at least 60mph with a loaded train and 75mph with an empty. In the next decade or so we're probably going to see 87mph to 100mph intermodal freight introduced, making everything but the 68's and the coming 88's unsuitable of those workings. If FOC's don't increase the speed of their services, they are going to start losing their business to road hauliers. The same road hauliers they have just spent the last 20 years desparatly winning business from.

Time are changing. Some locos can keep up some can't. It happened countless times throughout railway history and its still happening now. What we need is to tell the EU were to shove their emmission regs so that FOC's can have free reign in choosing the next generation of faster and more capable freight locos.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I thought it hadn't been confirmed where Scotrail would be getting their HSTs from (I actually thought they'd be from FGW)?

I thought that but since FGW wiring is running late they aren't going to be available in time. GC however are moving to an all 180 fleet releasing their HST's to Scotrail. Scotrail will probably want shot of the buffer fitted HST's when the FGW examples arrive so that they have a uniform fleet.