What's the Attraction for Using Old Locos?

[whhistle]

Why do (some) freight companies use older locos like the 37s or the 50s instead of newer 60s (for example)?

 

[atillathehunn]

Why do (some) freight companies use older locos like the 37s or the 50s instead of newer 60s (for example)?

Capital expired = cheaper.

I think the 37s cling on in some parts due to their route availability - I think this is the reason the Cambrian uses the 97s (or why they fitted the ETMS to the 97s and hence why they now have a monopoly).

I don't think GBRf own that many 60s, and the competition might not be too willing to sell them. Also, I understand some of GBRf management are gricers.

 

[Journeyman]

I think the 37s cling on in some parts due to their route availability - I think this is the reason the Cambrian uses the 97s (or why they fitted the ETMS to the 97s and hence why they now have a monopoly).

That's the main reason - the 37 is a very versatile machine that is quite lightweight, and there's very few places it can't go. The trend towards larger, more powerful locos in recent years has resulted in a heavyweight fleet with some routes that are barred to them.

 

[LOL The Irony]

There's also "grandfather rights". I don't know what they are but I think it applies to BR units.

 

[zn1]

you wont get better lightweight, all round locos such as the 37 and their sister fleets..they are easier to maintain, are near enough nuke proof , no digital engine management etc..just a human, Electro pneumatic , relays etc controls they can go anywhere literally, these new heavyweights might look great, but they are route limited...its amazing to think that are steam locos that are lighter than some modern diesels..

 

[broadgage]

Also, good used locomotives are available very quickly, much quicker than waiting for a new build.
Even an old loco from a heritage line can often be brought up to main line standards more quickly than buying new.

As an example consider the pair of class 50s that GBRF are leasing or hiring and that are painted in GBRF livery, I suspect that bringing these up to standard was a lot quicker than buying new, as well as being cheaper in capital cost.
In the case of GBRF I suspect that there is also an element of "free advertising" since such deals attract attention and publicity and thereby keep GBRF in the public eye.

 

[nat67]

But also loco's such as 47's are just brilliant for all sorts of work like the sleeper, charters plus when Colas had them which are now used by GBRF they were on the Washwood-Boston steels and departmental.

 

[talltim]

its amazing to think that are steam locos that are lighter than some modern diesels..

Why is that amazing?

 

[jopsuk]

its amazing to think that are steam locos that are lighter than some modern diesels..

A class 9F, one of the biggest, most powerful steam locos to be built and run on the British Network. Compartive figures are tricky for all sorts of reasons, but they have a listed tractive effort of 176.45kN. It weighs about 141t on six axles (plus a tender? Think this is weight minus tender)
Modern diesels are a little more powerful. A Class 68 puts out 317kN, weights 85t and has four axles (and carries it's own fuel)
Obviously the 9F was quite limited in RA, a more widely useable late era Pacific such as the 7MT, specifically designed to be a bit lighter and more powerful than earlier designs, weighs 95.1t and puts out 143kN

Let's try and find a late era loco lighter than a class 68 though.
We find the 5MT 4-6-0, BR's update of the excellent Stanier Black Five design. This weighs about 76t, and puts out 116.2kN, barely more than a third of that 68.

For the highest diesel tractive effort, we can find the Class 59 (hardly modern now! the oldest are 34 this year) at 126t, lighter than the 9F and putting out an incredible 508kN.

So, the heaviest steam trains didn't put out as much power as most diesels (even a Class 20 is almost as strong as a 9F- get into arguments about continuous versus peak all you like) and yet the heaviest diesels are nowhere near as heavy as the heaviest steam locos.

Apologies for putting up numbers against emotion.

 

[hooverboy]

you wont get better lightweight, all round locos such as the 37 and their sister fleets..they are easier to maintain, are near enough nuke proof , no digital engine management etc..just a human, Electro pneumatic , relays etc controls they can go anywhere literally, these new heavyweights might look great, but they are route limited...its amazing to think that are steam locos that are lighter than some modern diesels..

agreed. they are really quite decent locomotives.
top+tail on the wherry line is quite an experience-they go like rockets!

I don't think too many people would have predicted the 20's lasting as long as they have, but as people on here have stated already it's the "go anywhere" low route availability in part that has given them their longevity.
the short wheelbase is the redeeming factor I think.not many other locos have it on the network...I think only 73's and HST.

just goes to show there is certainly a market for a low RA type 2/3 mixed traffic engine.Given that both 20's and 37's are now 50 years old +, maybe vivarail can do something with a "cut+shut" HST power car!

i)weld a duplicate cab on the blunt end and add relevant pipes+buffers
ii) re gear for 90mph
iii)pinch the panto's off 31x's going for scrap
iv) throw in new transformer rated around 3-4MW.
v)derate MTU power plant to 1600-1800bhp
vi) assign one alternator motor pole for selection to traction or ETH depending on load.
vii) improve the brakes to cope with unassisted wagons.

hey presto -it's a kwiksave dual mode 20/31/(nearly 37) replacement.perfectly capable of 500T freight or passenger car in tow, and RA5 so it has lots of options.
should weigh in around 80 tonnes and regearing (and maybe AC traction)will give you about 45-50 000lb/f of tractive effort.

37 will win on tractive effort given the extra weight and pair of powered axles but it could be a use for the old HST, and the MTU engines are quite new(around 10 years old), so plenty of life left.

 

[jopsuk]

how many 37s and 20s are typically in use, over say a week?

 

[Kite159]

But also loco's such as 47's are just brilliant for all sorts of work like the sleeper, charters plus when Colas had them which are now used by GBRF they were on the Washwood-Boston steels and departmental.

Until they go bang and break down like 47s nearly always do, or when they can't climb Old Hill bank

 

[hooverboy]

how many 37s and 20s are typically in use, over say a week?

still quite a lot.

there are lots of freight operations where a using 66 is complete overkill......and quite a few routes that those loco's can't operate.
They are designed to be running heavy haul of 1000 tonnes +. A smaller consignment is wasting fuel frankly.

DRS have supposedly bought in class 88 for some of these jobs, but I think they are still RA7,so not capable of running all over the place...and 950BHP on diesel is not quite enough juice for a loaded up freight train.The sweet spot on diesel is 1600-2000HP.It gives enough versatility to run single engine with a reasonable load up an adverse incline.

the 73/9 is quite a good conversion.that can run on diesel/3rd rail.
we now need the equivalent on diesel/25Kv

light freight(300-500T) used to be 2*20, 1*25, 1*31,1*33 or1*37
medium freight (600-700T), 1* 37 or 2*20/2*31 was the typical traction about 20 years ago.
heavy haul 1000T+ was 2*37, 2*47 or a 56

 

[43096]

agreed. they are really quite decent locomotives.
top+tail on the wherry line is quite an experience-they go like rockets!

I don't think too many people would have predicted the 20's lasting as long as they have, but as people on here have stated already it's the "go anywhere" low route availability in part that has given them their longevity.
the short wheelbase is the redeeming factor I think.not many other locos have it on the network...I think only 73's and HST.

just goes to show there is certainly a market for a low RA type 2/3 mixed traffic engine.Given that both 20's and 37's are now 50 years old +, maybe vivarail can do something with a "cut+shut" HST power car!

i)weld a duplicate cab on the blunt end and add relevant pipes+buffers
ii) re gear for 90mph
iii)pinch the panto's off 31x's going for scrap
iv) throw in new transformer rated around 3-4MW.
v)derate MTU power plant to 1600-1800bhp
vi) assign one alternator motor pole for selection to traction or ETH depending on load.
vii) improve the brakes to cope with unassisted wagons.

hey presto -it's a kwiksave dual mode 20/31/(nearly 37) replacement.perfectly capable of 500T freight or passenger car in tow, and RA5 so it has lots of options.
should weigh in around 80 tonnes and regearing (and maybe AC traction)will give you about 45-50 000lb/f of tractive effort.

37 will win on tractive effort given the extra weight and pair of powered axles but it could be a use for the old HST, and the MTU engines are quite new(around 10 years old), so plenty of life left.

So you plan on adding more kit in such as a transformer, a cab (which would have to be to modern standards) and still have the loco as RA5. And you get into acceptance issues and hacking around 40 year-old bodyshells. That's before you get into what the market is for such a machine. Still, not like an enthusiast forum to come up with ill-considered, expensive pipe-dreams, is it?

 

[hooverboy]

So you plan on adding more kit in such as a transformer, a cab (which would have to be to modern standards) and still have the loco as RA5. And you get into acceptance issues and hacking around 40 year-old bodyshells. That's before you get into what the market is for such a machine. Still, not like an enthusiast forum to come up with ill-considered, expensive pipe-dreams, is it?

transformer- yes..not a problem. 3MW one is about 2500kg

cab- the existing ones from HST power cars are already acceptance tested for 125mph+ crash worthiness are they not?
you just have one at both ends..remove the existing guards area! you won't be running at 125mph!!!!!!

market- as said before. the utility loco's class 20-37 are 50 years+ old. they are end of life.
not to mention environmental concerns over their engines, and fuel economy compared to MTU4000.
I would wager such a construction would be considerably cleaner and safer than a class 20!

..or you can just be really pedantic and stick the MTU4000 into a class 91 instead. They will be going spare...and all the cab safety and electronics you are so concerned about is already there and proven- even the blunt end at 100mph.(the problem with that would be the it's rated for 6MW under the wires,so the diesel would be a bit underpowered)

for those so inclined,a photoshop might be slightly amusing if someone cares to conjour one up!

look- if we were doing health+safety on steroids then why do class 20's get driven blunt end first?
where there is a significantly higher risk of death or injury to the driver?

granted you gain a bit of extra visibility, but from a HSE risk assessors point of view on their nice little spreadsheet multiplier, you are slightly decreasing the likelihood of an accident, but vastly increasing the severity in injuries should they occur
(I have to do risk assessments!, it's frankly my pet hate)

 

[talltim]

You’ll not be welding an HST cab on, they're made of fibreglass...

 

[hooverboy]

You’ll not be welding an HST cab on, they're made of fibreglass...

ok epoxy it is then!

 

[C37]

For those of us that like a bit of nostalgia, the resurgence of old locos is welcome, just the other day in a couple of hours on the MML there was:

A Drs Class 37 pushing an inspection saloon
A pair of 47s running to Doncaster and back,
A 37 running light to Derby,
73s topping and tailing a Network Rail train
A 31 and a 47 going to Ruddington GCR.

And if you go past Leicester Depot you could be forgiven for mistaking it for being the 1980s!

Considering that in the late 90s EWS came along and said that old locos would be phased out it favour of new, it seems ironic that on a daily basis, there are as many, if nor more vintage locos on the MML as there are newer class 66s!

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Why do (some) freight companies use older locos like the 37s or the 50s instead of newer 60s (for example)?

The 60s in particular are hideously complex with extensive, but very dated electronics - this is the reason why DB was quick to sideline these when they didn't need them. Probably a factor in Colas selling them on to use 56s instead.

 

[dubscottie]

The 60s in particular are hideously complex with extensive, but very dated electronics - this is the reason why DB was quick to sideline these when they didn't need them. Probably a factor in Colas selling them on to use 56s instead.

The 60's were laid up for financial/ownership reasons.

EWS/DB own the 60's outright but lease/pay loans on the 66's so it made sense.

The golf course I worked on did something similar. We had a mix of machines that were owned outright and leased machines.

We got every hour out the leased machines first as we were not going to pay £xxx a month for them just to sit in the shed.

 

[JohnMcL7]

I've seen some unusual ideas here but re-engineering a class 43 with an additional cab and 25kV electric equipment...wow.

DRS are after some new locomotives to replace the older locomotives:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/drs-planning-10-x-mixed-traffic-locos.168515/

As I understand it these will be the 93's which will 88's with a more powerful diesel engine able to match a 47 on diesel power:

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/new-class-93-not-ic250.169065/
https://www.railmagazine.com/news/n...s-fuels-its-ambitions-with-tri-mode-class-93s

 

[GrimShady]

transformer- yes..not a problem. 3MW one is about 2500kg

cab- the existing ones from HST power cars are already acceptance tested for 125mph+ crash worthiness are they not?
you just have one at both ends..remove the existing guards area! you won't be running at 125mph!!!!!!

market- as said before. the utility loco's class 20-37 are 50 years+ old. they are end of life.
not to mention environmental concerns over their engines, and fuel economy compared to MTU4000.
I would wager such a construction would be considerably cleaner and safer than a class 20!

..or you can just be really pedantic and stick the MTU4000 into a class 91 instead. They will be going spare...and all the cab safety and electronics you are so concerned about is already there and proven- even the blunt end at 100mph.(the problem with that would be the it's rated for 6MW under the wires,so the diesel would be a bit underpowered)

for those so inclined,a photoshop might be slightly amusing if someone cares to conjour one up!

look- if we were doing health+safety on steroids then why do class 20's get driven blunt end first?
where there is a significantly higher risk of death or injury to the driver?

granted you gain a bit of extra visibility, but from a HSE risk assessors point of view on their nice little spreadsheet multiplier, you are slightly decreasing the likelihood of an accident, but vastly increasing the severity in injuries should they occur
(I have to do risk assessments!, it's frankly my pet hate)

You might as well couple two of the PCs fitted with draw gear back to back.

Interestingly enough, there's a pic online somewhere of a cut and shut PC model similar to what you just described.

Edit: Found it!

 

[hooverboy]

You might as well couple two of the PCs fitted with draw gear back to back.

Interestingly enough, there's a pic online somewhere of a cut and shut PC model similar to what you just described.

Edit: Found it!

nice!!..good find!
doesn't look to bad actually!

 

[Photohunter71]

I've seen some unusual ideas here but re-engineering a class 43 with an additional cab and 25kV electric equipment...wow.

DRS are after some new locomotives to replace the older locomotives:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/drs-planning-10-x-mixed-traffic-locos.168515/

As I understand it these will be the 93's which will 88's with a more powerful diesel engine able to match a 47 on diesel power:

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/new-class-93-not-ic250.169065/
https://www.railmagazine.com/news/n...s-fuels-its-ambitions-with-tri-mode-class-93s

I think you'll find that R.O.G are getting the 93's, and the design concept was an 88, but no-one knows what it will actually look like, but the base traction platform is that of an 88 with additions. As for DRS it was an initial order for 10 Diesel only mixed traffic loco's to replace 20's/37's and 47's. I still think this is a further order of 68's myself,but DRS have yet to announce who will build the locomotives so I may well be wide of the mark there.

 

[Aictos]

agreed. they are really quite decent locomotives.
top+tail on the wherry line is quite an experience-they go like rockets!

I don't think too many people would have predicted the 20's lasting as long as they have, but as people on here have stated already it's the "go anywhere" low route availability in part that has given them their longevity.
the short wheelbase is the redeeming factor I think.not many other locos have it on the network...I think only 73's and HST.

just goes to show there is certainly a market for a low RA type 2/3 mixed traffic engine.Given that both 20's and 37's are now 50 years old +, maybe vivarail can do something with a "cut+shut" HST power car!

i)weld a duplicate cab on the blunt end and add relevant pipes+buffers
ii) re gear for 90mph
iii)pinch the panto's off 31x's going for scrap
iv) throw in new transformer rated around 3-4MW.
v)derate MTU power plant to 1600-1800bhp
vi) assign one alternator motor pole for selection to traction or ETH depending on load.
vii) improve the brakes to cope with unassisted wagons.

hey presto -it's a kwiksave dual mode 20/31/(nearly 37) replacement.perfectly capable of 500T freight or passenger car in tow, and RA5 so it has lots of options.
should weigh in around 80 tonnes and regearing (and maybe AC traction)will give you about 45-50 000lb/f of tractive effort.

37 will win on tractive effort given the extra weight and pair of powered axles but it could be a use for the old HST, and the MTU engines are quite new(around 10 years old), so plenty of life left.

Why would you go to all that trouble when you can save time and money by just going new build instead?

Seems to be a solution looking for a problem!

 

[MikePJ]

There's also "grandfather rights". I don't know what they are but I think it applies to BR units.

"Grandfather rights" in this context are to do with pollution standards for diesel locomotives. Environmental legislation (currently an EU matter...) dictates that new locomotives and DMUs meet very stringent rules on their exhaust emissions. The Class 68s and 88s meet those standards, but other recent locomotives (e.g. 66s) do not. However, older locomotives only have to meet the standards that were in place when they were introduced into service, even if they are substantially rebuilt. This is part of the reason that a lot of money was spent rebuilding 73s with new engines - they are allowed to be more polluting than a brand new locomotive because they're a rebuild of an older loco.

 

[nat67]

Until they go bang and break down like 47s nearly always do, or when they can't climb Old Hill bank

True but Colas didn't do a great job on maintenance as was seen on a YouTube video of 477xx when it caught fire at Bristol Parkway some years back.

 

[03_179]

The cut and shut HSTs could class 89.5s but a diesel version

 

[43096]

transformer- yes..not a problem. 3MW one is about 2500kg

cab- the existing ones from HST power cars are already acceptance tested for 125mph+ crash worthiness are they not?
you just have one at both ends..remove the existing guards area! you won't be running at 125mph!!!!!!

market- as said before. the utility loco's class 20-37 are 50 years+ old. they are end of life.
not to mention environmental concerns over their engines, and fuel economy compared to MTU4000.
I would wager such a construction would be considerably cleaner and safer than a class 20!

..or you can just be really pedantic and stick the MTU4000 into a class 91 instead. They will be going spare...and all the cab safety and electronics you are so concerned about is already there and proven- even the blunt end at 100mph.(the problem with that would be the it's rated for 6MW under the wires,so the diesel would be a bit underpowered)

for those so inclined,a photoshop might be slightly amusing if someone cares to conjour one up!

look- if we were doing health+safety on steroids then why do class 20's get driven blunt end first?
where there is a significantly higher risk of death or injury to the driver?

granted you gain a bit of extra visibility, but from a HSE risk assessors point of view on their nice little spreadsheet multiplier, you are slightly decreasing the likelihood of an accident, but vastly increasing the severity in injuries should they occur
(I have to do risk assessments!, it's frankly my pet hate)

You really have not thought this through.

- The existing HST cabs do not meet current regulations - they are allowed to be used because they have grandfather rights.
- Where are you putting the transformer and the associated control gear (which you didn't mention)?
- How are you keeping to the RA5 weight when the power cars are already close to the limit and you're adding more kit in?

The maximum demand for such a loco is probably 25 locos - that to replace the existing test train fleet and DRS flask work. Test trains could just as easily be resourced by using an HST power car as is.

You are completely ignorant of the history and economics: BR ditched the Class 38 project as it was clear the market was moving to longer, heavier trains and went with Class 60 instead. Likewise, the FOCs have so far been able to justify just 11 Type 3 rebuilds (GBRf Class 73/9s), and even DRS (which has the most dysfunctional traction policy of any FOC) hasn't been able to justify re-engining Class 37s. There just isn't a market or a demand for such a machine - it's complete pie-in-the-sky.

You have to do risk assessments? We all do risk assessments, every day. Crossing the road involves doing a risk assessment, for example, you just don't write it down.

 

[JohnMcL7]

I think you'll find that R.O.G are getting the 93's, and the design concept was an 88, but no-one knows what it will actually look like, but the base traction platform is that of an 88 with additions. As for DRS it was an initial order for 10 Diesel only mixed traffic loco's to replace 20's/37's and 47's. I still think this is a further order of 68's myself,but DRS have yet to announce who will build the locomotives so I may well be wide of the mark there.

They can't order any more 68's as they don't meet emissions requirements and there seems to be a question mark over how much work would be required to fit a compliant engine.