Jump to content
 

Class 69 - Return of the body snatchers?


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold
On 06/04/2019 at 21:42, jools1959 said:

 

The 710 series of engines are just a long line of successful GM products but you have to remember, they are just a further development 1930’s, 40’s and 50’s power units where fuel was almost at give away prices and nobody cared about emissions.

 

They are simple 2-stroke, lightweight, easy to maintain and virtually indestructible power units but with all the disadvantages of a 2-stroke engine.  If you remember the Japanese 2-stroke motorbikes (I do as I had a Kawasaki 400cc S3A), the amount of blue smoke emanating from the exhaust and hoping and praying you have enough fuel to last till the next petrol station.  Now times that many, many times!

 

To sum it up, the 710 is reliable, simple to maintain, fairly lightweight but thirsty and not very emissions friendly.  The GE “GEVO” 4-stroke engine is more fuel efficient, loads of low down grunt but it’s a big lump, needs a lot of cooling, no such thing as a “quick fix” and prone to blowing turbos.  But before you jump all over me, I got that information from my cousin who is a shop mechanic for Union Pacific at North Platte, NB.


As an ex Suzuki GT380 owner I too love the smell of two stroke in the morning.  But the  comparison with the 710 isn’t really comparing like with like as the bike engines are air cooled, dry sump and aspirate at normal air pressure via carburettors and cylinder ports whereas the 710 is water cooled, wet sump, pressure aspirated and fuel injected with tappet valves.
 

The dry sump system means that the fuel charge has to pass through the crankcase en route to the cylinders so can’t be wet sump....oil is total loss hence the blue smoke, although at least there was an oil pump feeding oil directly rather the crude 20:1 in the fuel tank. A wet sump engine needs to be pressure charged to scavenge the exhaust gases prior to the inlet cycle but has Less complex phases in the cycle .... and with injection and water cooling on the 710 combustion can be far more carefully controlled, so excessive smoke ought to be due to either lubricating oil passing worn piston rings or fuel mixture issues.

 

Thank goodness we don’t have railway locos with 1970s Japanese two stroke engines. They would go like hell but blank out the countryside and just carry straight on when they came to the first corner!

Edited by Phil Bullock
  • Like 3
  • Informative/Useful 2
  • Funny 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, MGR Hooper! said:

Never said that they needed to re-tool the Class 56.

 

No you didn't.

 

I was saying that unless somone tools a new Class 56 then it is unlikely that we will see a Class 69.

 

10 hours ago, MGR Hooper! said:

It's a superb model as is and if at all any improvements are to be made it's the radiator grilles that need to almost flush with the roof and it probably needs an upgrade to the DCC socket.

What I said was with CAD already in existence, it's much cheaper to modify the CAD and then have the tooling slides made to have a Class 69. 

 

Except that assumes the original tooling was designed for such modifications.

 

It is entirely possible/likely that the existing tooling can't be modified, hence my point about needing to tool a new 56.

 

In the costs of bringing a model to market the CAD is relatively cheap - hence why even some projects that are looking for expressions of interest will go so far as to get some CAD done.

 

So the existence of Class 56 CAD doesn't change much.

 

A Class 69 model will face the same issues of the Class 88 (though the 88 does have the extra burden of being overhead electric) - very small fleet with 1 paint scheme means little to no market for the model to justify the expense.

 

 

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

First up let me make one thing clear...my initial post about the Class 69 models was wishful thinking a.k.a the rmweb sin of wishlisting. I know what the chances are of actually seeing one. Being in the industry and having friends in the industry gives me a lot more insight into these things.

 

Quote

 

No you didn't.

 

I was saying that unless somone tools a new Class 56 then it is unlikely that we will see a Class 69.

 

 

Got it, my mistake...Understood now.

 

 

Quote

 

Except that assumes the original tooling was designed for such modifications.

 

It is entirely possible/likely that the existing tooling can't be modified, hence my point about needing to tool a new 56.

 

 

I'd direct you back to what I said - I spoke about CAD being modified, not tooling. There's big difference between modifying CAD and modifying tooling. The cost of CAD may not be expensive when compared to tooling costs. But in a a hypothetical situation where a company like Hornby or Dapol want to make a Class 69, they will most likely start by altering CAD work to create a Class 69. Note that I've not said alter the tooling.

 

FYI, modifying tooling is a permanent change. Manufacturers only modify tooling to improve a model or correct it eg: Hornby's Railroad models that are modified to have NEM couplings or different motorised bogies or the addition of a DCC socket.

They don't really modify tooling to create a new loco, except for a few rare cases like when Hornby modified their LBSCR E2 to make it into Thomas. That is a more permanent change.

I didn't make any assumptions about the original tooling being created to factor in new loco types. I know for a fact that if Hornby or Dapol want to make a Class 69, Hornby and Dapol will need to design the bodyshell as a new part altogether, Hornby will need to create a tool for the underframe equipment and Dapol will need a whole new chassis frame.

To sum this part up. I never said modify the tooling. It's a common mistake a lot of members on rmweb seem to make.

 

 

Quote

In the costs of bringing a model to market the CAD is relatively cheap - hence why even some projects that are looking for expressions of interest will go so far as to get some CAD done. So the existence of Class 56 CAD doesn't change much.

 

Yes CAD is relatively cheaper than tooling. But at the same time modifying existing CAD (not tooling), is even cheaper and the most sensible approach, rather than re-draw the entire thing (unless as you stated, someone wants to do a brand new Class 56). Especially in a case where the starting point is more or less accurate dimension wise and just needs details changed. So yes the existence of Class 56 CAD does make a difference but it's based entirely on the manufacturers intentions.
 

 

Quote

A Class 69 model will face the same issues of the Class 88 (though the 88 does have the extra burden of being overhead electric) - very small fleet with 1 paint scheme means little to no market for the model to justify the expense.


Yes it will and that's why my original post said - I quite like it! I HOPE Hornby and Dapol will do a Class 69 eventually. A.k.a wishful thinking 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • RMweb Gold

I was trying to figure out what was different about the cab fronts from a normal Class 56, then it hit me like a wet kipper around the face, the opening for the air horns has gone?  I always thought that the horn position was one of the defining details of a Class 56.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 5 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Let me start by saying I am not wishlisting here, none of my models are newer than BR blue so I would not be interested in a 69.

However I believe there will be demand for a model once they are in traffic. A class of 10 is small enough to be a cult, but large enough for them to cover a reasonable part of the network, so be seen by many. As for livery, I would be very surprised if there is only one livery. GB Railfreight will surely want publicity for their investment, so expect at least one to be liveried to represent a specific customer or traffic flow. I admit I have not been closely following the rebuild, but will any of them get named? That would be another publicity opportunity for GBRF, and another selling point for a model.

If a financial case can be made for models of a class of 1, 2, or 5, (or the Fell for heavens sake!), then surely these will sell.

 

cheers

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

It looks pretty much the same below the solebar, so if anyone wants to release a model of a Class 69, possibly just a body shell needs to be produced.  I expect there are noticeable differences on the bogies and under frame details but I can’t see any.

Edited by jools1959
Typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks pretty good with the new grilles.

 

Maybe if GBRf do announce some partnership liveries it'll spare Hornby from attempting their colours again..!

 

(Either that or they might do it as a railroad plus, they seemed to manage okay on 47739)

 

Murmurs of these working some of the infrastructure for HS2, in which case I'd imagine HM Govt might want to adorn the sides with something

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 04/04/2019 at 21:09, Davexoc said:

They are also loud enough that you can hear one passing alongside the West Wycombe road, from the car during a downpour. One passed me on the way home today, and although all I could see was the roofline, I knew it was a 68.

IMO, pulling away they're a bit like a 47 with a lot of added bass....

 

Dave

I’d say they are more like a more powerful sounding Hymek when pulling away.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Aside from the (nice) exclusive of seeing it running anywhere other than the confines of Longport, if there's one thing that grinds my gears, it's the clattering away of a camera shutter next to a video.....................

  • Agree 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, newbryford said:

Aside from the (nice) exclusive of seeing it running anywhere other than the confines of Longport, if there's one thing that grinds my gears, it's the clattering away of a camera shutter next to a video.....................

Amateurs!

  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...