Freightliner to take over Mendip aggregates traffic

[TravisM]

FY were offered detailed written proposals for both types and selected the GM proposal instead of the Brush/BR proposal; I don't think the spec for the Class 60 changed very much after Yeoman had been offered details of it. Their decision was also influenced by reliability and after sales support where they were already getting good service from GM and which they continued to get after getting the 59s.

 

I suspect the 59s are probably better at low speed adhesion with really heavy trains and I wonder if any Class 60s have yet worked anything as heavy as the Merehead 'jumbo' train (5,000 tons trailing load when they first started running)? Fuel consumption would be interesting to compare as up to the end of BR I don't think any fur el consumption calculations had been produced for a Class 60 hauling 5,000 tons from Westbury to Acton and all Class 60 fuel mileage in BR days was individually calculated for each diagram they would be allocated to as fuel consumption was, not surprisingly, affected by load and gradients. The Derby computer calculations of Class 60 consumption were remarkably accurate and when a Class 60 had not been refuelled after working a tank train from Lindsey to the WR the loco ran out of fuel on the return empty working within 7 miles of the point at which it was calculated it would run out of fuel (the Driver who couldn't be bothered to take the booked light engine working for fuel probably wished that he had!).

 

Coupling strength has long been an important factor on the heavier Mendips stone trains with various restrictions on how different wagon types are to be marshalled although no doubt all the shackles in use are 50 ton or stronger. And of course when we did the 12,0000 tonne trial train the biggest problem - even with a mid-train helper - was coupling strength although the part which failed was actually a coupling hook on one of the locos.

You have to remember that the Class 59 was a scaled down version of the domestic North American SD40-2 which was a proven product with over 6000 built over a 20 year period if you include the earlier SD40. At the time the Class 59 was ordered, the Class 60 was still on the drawing board and unproven. Given the troubles getting the 60’s into service, FY must have thought they’d dodged a bullet.

 

As a point of interest, when Foster Yeoman approached EMD, they originally wanted six 59’s as they based their requirements on Class 56 availability but EMD looked at the figures and said “You only need four” as they had faith in their product. When they arrived, their availability was a figure that BR could only dream about and when FY went back to EMD to order another, they asked how much and they were told “same price as the others” though when they came to pay for it, it had gone up marginally.

Edited December 22, 2018 by jools1959

[bigP]

--

 

Edited January 31, 2021 by bigP
Deleted

[rodent279]

You have to remember that the Class 59 was a scaled down version of the domestic North American SD40-2 which was a proven product with over 6000 built over a 20 year period if you include the earlier SD40.

Our loco building industry really was a cottage industry by comparison. No wonder it hasn't survived. Have we even built 6000 diesels in the UK?

[jjb1970]

There are many good things that can be said about the 645 engine, good fuel consumption isn't one of them.

[jim.snowdon]

Our loco building industry really was a cottage industry by comparison. No wonder it hasn't survived. Have we even built 6000 diesels in the UK?

And whereas our industry's prime customer kept buying buying locomotives of varying sizes, with varying requirements, US industry, once the ex-steam builders had expired, kept developing its own products and telling the customers "which model would you like and what colour do want it delivered in?". The only UK company that I think came close to that was English Electric in its pre-GEC days.

 

Jim

[TravisM]

There are many good things that can be said about the 645 engine, good fuel consumption isn't one of them.

Remember the 645 series engine was developed when fuel was comparatively cheap of the 60’s and as fuel prices rose, that prompted EMD to develop the 710 series.

[russ p]

The 710 is hardly frugal ,66s are terrible on fuel

[PM47079]

Indeed hence the throttle stop fitted on our ones on notch 7 to stop you going into notch 8 unless absolutely necessary to try and save fuel

Edited December 22, 2018 by PM47079

[Yellowperil]

Based on something worked on previously, here are ‘approximated’ fuel consumption figures (gallons/mile) for a number of locomotives which makes for an interesting comparison.

Edited December 22, 2018 by Yellowperil

[jjb1970]

At one time the IMarEST used to publish an annual directory of marine engines with key data (they seem to have abandoned it as I can't remember receiving it for a few years, maybe another casualty of their deciding marine engineers and marine engineering are beneath them now) and the SFC (specific fuel consumption) in g/KWHr for EMD engines were ridiculously high compared to other engines if comparing like for like in terms of engine size and power.

[russ p]

Not sure that chart is too correct.

When we do RHTT pairs of 37 s use about a third less fuel than pairs of 66 s

Would be interesting to see how a 57 compares as they are also pretty thirsty

[Yellowperil]

Not sure that chart is too correct.

When we do RHTT pairs of 37 s use about a third less fuel than pairs of 66 s

Would be interesting to see how a 57 compares as they are also pretty thirsty

It’s an approximate figure based on a number of assumptions. For example, train class has a significant affect on consumption, these figures are based on a Class 6 train. In reality consumption is a very complex subject and is subject to a huge number of variables, making it difficult to calculate accurately, hence the ‘approximate’ nature of these figures.

 

These figures are used by a number of rail organisations, including some FOCs.

[rodent279]

Interesting that rail shows its advantage with the heavier loads. Triple the load from 500t to 1500t and the consumption only goes up from 1.33 to 1.82 g/mile for a 37. No wonder they were so popular.

Edited December 22, 2018 by rodent279

[newbryford]

Oh look - which is the best of the type 5s...........?

 

[scottishlocos]

Interesting that rail shows its advantage with the heavier loads. Triple the load from 500t to 1500t and the consumption only goes up from 1.33 to 1.82 g/mile for a 37. No wonder they were so popular.

Exactly one of the many reasons why Class 37s are still going strong and lasted longer than newer class 58s

[The Stationmaster]

Not sure that chart is too correct.

When we do RHTT pairs of 37 s use about a third less fuel than pairs of 66 s

Would be interesting to see how a 57 compares as they are also pretty thirsty

 

Like.  We used to diagram on the basis of one gallon per mile for mainline diesels and I don't think we ever had a problem with any running out of fuel for that reason.  This didn't apply for Class 60s where Derby produced, as I've said previously, individual fuel figures for each diagrammed working - the only class for which that was done and presumably on the grounds that they were more thirsty, especially on heavy trains. than other locos (we didn't diagram 58s so I've no knowledge of those in respect of fuel consumption.

 

It was interesting to see that BR's work in carefully assessing data for loco working and matters such as fuel consumption seems to have been replaced by a table of approximations.  I sincerely hope that approach does not extend to permitted loads and critical things for heavy train working such as coupling strength and marshalling.

 

BTW when I refer to 'heavy trains' I wouldn't consider anything under about 3,500-4,000 tons as being 'heavy' (and yes TONS not tonnes).

[Yellowperil]

Like. We used to diagram on the basis of one gallon per mile for mainline diesels and I don't think we ever had a problem with any running out of fuel for that reason. This didn't apply for Class 60s where Derby produced, as I've said previously, individual fuel figures for each diagrammed working - the only class for which that was done and presumably on the grounds that they were more thirsty, especially on heavy trains. than other locos (we didn't diagram 58s so I've no knowledge of those in respect of fuel consumption.

 

It was interesting to see that BR's work in carefully assessing data for loco working and matters such as fuel consumption seems to have been replaced by a table of approximations. I sincerely hope that approach does not extend to permitted loads and critical things for heavy train working such as coupling strength and marshalling.

 

BTW when I refer to 'heavy trains' I wouldn't consider anything under about 3,500-4,000 tons as being 'heavy' (and yes TONS not tonnes).

I should point out, that table of approximations was only a small amount of the output from the project, I’m not going to share the majority of the information for obvious reasons.

 

The Class 66 figures, for example, were derived from an analysis of over 300 different real journeys.

Edited December 23, 2018 by Yellowperil

[jjb1970]

Do they not monitor fuel use in real time now? Accurate measurement of fuel use and tank levels is cheap now as are data links.

[The Stationmaster]

I should point out, that table of approximations was only a small amount of the output from the project, I’m not going to share the majority of the information for obvious reasons.

 

The Class 66 figures, for example, were derived from an analysis of over 300 different real journeys.

 

So the Class 60 figures are no more than an average - which is not the same thing as the past (BR) practice of an exact calculation for each diagram of the quantity of fuel it would use (which experience showed to be accurate).  These things become rather important when you identify a need to refuel or not refuel at a particular place in a diagram and you either waste fuel by over-ordering or potentially go the other way and run out.   The logical conclusion is that if you average and produce a high figure you will over order/waste time fuelling when it isn't needed - and road tankers calling at individual fuelling locations cost money.

[TravisM]

You also have to remember that Class 37’s as well as Class 47’s are still being used because they sidestep current emissions legislation due to “grandfather rights” and the difficulties in procuring new tier 4 compliant loco’s that fit inside the UK loading gauge.

 

Also I think that their in retrospect cheap to procure if you can find one for sale, against buying a new loco. You have to remember that current emissions killed off building more Class 66’s and possibly 68’s and 70’s.

[hmrspaul]

You also have to remember that Class 37’s as well as Class 47’s are still being used because they sidestep current emissions legislation due to “grandfather rights”

 

This addresses something I have been wondering, have the elderly diesels had their emission better controlled? From what you suggest perhaps not. We have a fair number of 20s and 37s operating around York.

 

Paul

[Zomboid]

Massive Merehead to Acton stone trains sound like an ideal application for electric traction... Maybe in 2050.

[phil-b259]

This addresses something I have been wondering, have the elderly diesels had their emission better controlled?

 

Nope

 

The same principle applies to locos as it does to cars in that nobody can stop you buying and running a ford Cortana or a Morris Minor or a Ford model T even though it doesn't meet current emissions regs.

 

What some places have done to get round this is impose 'low emission zones' and charge the owners of polluting vehicles in an attempt to get them to upgrade. Its entirely possible that the likes of TfL might want to try and go down this route with trains in future too.

[rodent279]

Massive Merehead to Acton stone trains sound like an ideal application for electric traction... Maybe in 2050.

Not worth it unless the Merehead branch gets wired surely? If that does happen, at whose expense? Tytherington would be another.

Be great to see a 92 on those trains though.

Edited December 24, 2018 by rodent279

[Zomboid]

It's a long way from Newbury to Merehead... No chance any time soon. But it's the kind of flow that would be well suited to the power that electric locomotives have available compared to diesels.