Class 59 in 00

[ERIC ALLTORQUE]

Ta dah.........here is the script off the video and the disc sleeve if you want a copy of the film........https://www.videoscene.co.uk/trainload-type-5-archive

[No Decorum]

On 09/08/2022 at 23:19, TomScrut said:

 

Do you know something we don't?

 

Alas, I expect you meant the 68....

😭

[ERIC ALLTORQUE]

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

I don't know where you got that from but as the person who did all the operational planning for that test train and took in all the technical planning meetings I can assure you that whoever told you that was in part talking a word which rhymes neatly with rowlocks.  For a start 102 wagons with a gross laden weight of 100 tons, or slightly over doesn't add to 12,000 tons but would only be 10,200 tons. Without looking back through my papers I can't confirm one way or the other the planned number of wagons but they definitely weren't evenly divided either side of the mid-train loco because the rearmost wagon was derailed while forming up the train at Merehead and having been re-reailed using a 50 ton bucket loader I made sure with FY staff that it was not reattached to the train.  However the  the train load still slightly exceeded 12,000 tons.

 

There was no loco on the rear end - dead or otherwise - simply the train engine and the mid-train helper (to use the Americanism). In fact we might have been able to avoid the problem we thought would be most likely if we had had a loco on the back of the train especially as the EMD reps turned down my request for an EOT monitoring unit stating they couldn't get one over from the USA.

 

The train actually ran something between no more than 5 - 6 miles before it parted and a coupling didn't break (which is what we thought would be most likely to happen) but in fact, and very unusually, a coupling hook on the mid-train loco broke.  Thus the test ended the better part of 60 miles from the location where the 12,000 ton test was planned to end.   Fortunately the burger van we had arrnged to be present there did turn up but as I had raced forward from the start in order to meet the trains at destination I and a couple of the local staff booked out specially to deal with the train splitting were offered as many burgers as we could ever wish to eat.

 

As it happened the test proved what a number of us from BR considered was probably going to be the Achilles Heel of working a train that heavy.  But what I think surprised all of us was that it happened far sooner than we had expected albeit in precisely the circumstances we considered were likely to cause what we thought might happen.

And just to point out im not having a go at being  smart with anyone,its just i knew i had seen it on film,its a long time back and to be honest i have my name in the back of my clothes to cofirm who i am at times.I bought this video just to get the film of this.

[Mooresby]

On 17/09/2022 at 15:39, ERIC ALLTORQUE said:

This will keep you amused as you wait the final stretch eh........

 

Really interesting 30 mins - thanks for sharing!

[LaGrange]

This is better, early days of the ARC fleet 

 

[Ajax50046]

18 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

I don't know where you got that from but as the person who did all the operational planning for that test train and took in all the technical planning meetings I can assure you that whoever told you that was in part talking a word which rhymes neatly with rowlocks.  For a start 102 wagons with a gross laden weight of 100 tons, or slightly over doesn't add to 12,000 tons but would only be 10,200 tons. Without looking back through my papers I can't confirm one way or the other the planned number of wagons but they definitely weren't evenly divided either side of the mid-train loco because the rearmost wagon was derailed while forming up the train at Merehead and having been re-reailed using a 50 ton bucket loader I made sure with FY staff that it was not reattached to the train.  However the  the train load still slightly exceeded 12,000 tons.

 

There was no loco on the rear end - dead or otherwise - simply the train engine and the mid-train helper (to use the Americanism). In fact we might have been able to avoid the problem we thought would be most likely if we had had a loco on the back of the train especially as the EMD reps turned down my request for an EOT monitoring unit stating they couldn't get one over from the USA.

 

The train actually ran something between no more than 5 - 6 miles before it parted and a coupling didn't break (which is what we thought would be most likely to happen) but in fact, and very unusually, a coupling hook on the mid-train loco broke.  Thus the test ended the better part of 60 miles from the location where the 12,000 ton test was planned to end.   Fortunately the burger van we had arrnged to be present there did turn up but as I had raced forward from the start in order to meet the trains at destination I and a couple of the local staff booked out specially to deal with the train splitting were offered as many burgers as we could ever wish to eat.

 

As it happened the test proved what a number of us from BR considered was probably going to be the Achilles Heel of working a train that heavy.  But what I think surprised all of us was that it happened far sooner than we had expected albeit in precisely the circumstances we considered were likely to cause what we thought might happen.

 

Fascinating read - many thanks for posting in such detail. :) 

[ERIC ALLTORQUE]

4 hours ago, LaGrange said:

This is better, early days of the ARC fleet 

 

Yes its a good video if you like the 59 locomotive flows and history,i had not seen it on you tube as i have a disc i bought off ebay but its a copy as it was a vhs tape only film.

Edited September 20, 2022 by ERIC ALLTORQUE

[BR(S)]

Pictures of 59204 in National Power livery (4D-005-003) on the Kernow Models website, from their open day:

 

https://www.kernowmodelrailcentre.com/p/52491/4D-005-003-Dapol-Class-59-Diesel-Locomotive-number-59-204?fbclid=IwAR2XGLSopO-92-AhEtDXIU8ewM_sqKfE3Z0SWPICzb3uMthBRC9_-GHDS_g

[Steadfast]

Hmm, with a weird mix of 59/0  and 59/2 roof features. Not looked for anyhting else but that stands out a mile

 

Jo

[Torbay Express]

39 minutes ago, Steadfast said:

Hmm, with a weird mix of 59/0  and 59/2 roof features. Not looked for anyhting else but that stands out a mile

 

Jo

I looked and noticed that the numbers don't look right.  204 on the front too high?  Plus cast numbers look too large in the plaque.  Certainly does not look anywhere as detailed as Hattons Class 66.  Bogies look plastic-ey, lots of chassis pipe detail tooled into chassis, side grilles look like moulded plastic as opposed to fine etches.  Blue (maybe camera) looks a little too dark. 

 

Regrettably I don't think it will surpass the standards set by the Class 68.

Edited September 23, 2022 by Torbay Express
Addition

[Steadfast]

23 hours ago, Torbay Express said:

204 on the front too high? 

And the wrong typeface. Looks like Gill Sans vice a Helvetica / arial style font.

 

The silencer sits way too high in the body, more like a 66.

 

Whilst I understand there are compromises to the production of models, the angled underframe to presumably allow for the LEDs etc for the headlights just looks plain odd, and nothing like the real loco. 

 

The whole face of the front of the loco looks a bit 'open' to me. Not sure if it's undersized features or something in the wrong place? I'm glad I model in N!

 

Jo

Edited September 24, 2022 by Steadfast

[PieGuyRob]

In the photo on Kernow's website, the left hand buffer is wonky.

[Steadfast]

24 minutes ago, The Black Prince said:

There's a pod or something on the roof behind the exhaust that Dapol have added a tray beneath that I can't seem to find on the prototype (in any livery!).

 

The pod is certainly more "proud" on the 59/0s on a platform but by the /1's it seems to be flush with the roof. 

Its the NRN radio pod, and looks like Dapol's attempt at the style fitted to 59001 - 4 (note 59005 has 59/1 style NRNs). It's not been fitted in the position of the 59/0 NRN aerial, so it's not even like they've mixed details of two toolings!

 

The early 59/0s have the NRN pods on raised plinths, one over each cab.

 

59005, 59/1 and 59/2 have them in rebates on the centre line, no.1 end just in front of the silence,  no. 2 end between radiator grill and roof hatches.

 

Pics all linked from Flickr. 59/0 first

59005 (59/1 style)

 

59101

 

59204

 

Jo

[WILLIAM]

17 hours ago, Steadfast said:

 

The silencer sits way too high in the body, more like a 66.

 

 

What a strange thing to get wrong and what a shame? It's almost as if they've modelled a class 66 silencer/bay and is a prominent difference once highlighted. Wonder if an after market replacement of the correct size will become available?

[GEARJAMMER]

Having waited what? 6 years? For this to arrive, im a bit gutted with the basic errors that are being flagged up on it.

 

Makes you wonder if the other models will be accurate or if they to will have the same faults?????

 

One can hope that having seen the faults Revolution will upscale their class 59 to OO scale.

[Steadfast]

33 minutes ago, GEARJAMMER said:

One can hope that having seen the faults Revolution will upscale their class 59 to OO scale.

Or join those of us modelling in N 😉 decent length trains in a reasonable space, nice 59 or two up front as well

 

Jo 

[WCML100]

are we sure this is a production model photographed? would be good to have that confirmed first before judgement on the final model is passed. Dapol have given several odd pre production offerings drip fed to us with unusual arrangements in the past.. (wrong colour on NP livery etc)

[gary_lner]

10 hours ago, WCML100 said:

are we sure this is a production model photographed? would be good to have that confirmed first before judgement on the final model is passed. Dapol have given several odd pre production offerings drip fed to us with unusual arrangements in the past.. (wrong colour on NP livery etc)

Thats what I've been thinking. The showed off some samples at ally pally and they wernt production samples. Just decorated samples. So fingeres crossed its just one of them and the production models are ok.

[WCML100]

47 minutes ago, gary_lner said:

Thats what I've been thinking. The showed off some samples at ally pally and they wernt production samples. Just decorated samples. So fingeres crossed its just one of them and the production models are ok.

 

Lets hope it is that way otherwise it would be a big let down for such a long wait...

[WILLIAM]

13 hours ago, WCML100 said:

are we sure this is a production model photographed? would be good to have that confirmed first before judgement on the final model is passed. Dapol have given several odd pre production offerings drip fed to us with unusual arrangements in the past.. (wrong colour on NP livery etc)

Don't build your hopes up, this is what the Kernow email said - "Dapol brought a production Class 59 to our open weekend, and very kindly allowed us to have it photographed..."

[WCML100]

14 minutes ago, WILLIAM said:

Don't build your hopes up, this is what the Kernow email said - "Dapol brought a production Class 59 to our open weekend, and very kindly allowed us to have it photographed..."

 

That info is a real shame... thanks for sharing though!

[LaGrange]

On 24/09/2022 at 18:40, Steadfast said:

And the wrong typeface. Looks like Gill Sans vice a Helvetica / arial style font.

 

The silencer sits way too high in the body, more like a 66.

 

Whilst I understand there are compromises to the production of models, the angled underframe to presumably allow for the LEDs etc for the headlights just looks plain odd, and nothing like the real loco. 

 

The whole face of the front of the loco looks a bit 'open' to me. Not sure if it's undersized features or something in the wrong place? I'm glad I model in N!

 

Jo

 

Ha - had the preproduction 59/1 in my hands in 2018 and pointed this out to them

 

My guess is this one is the same as the 'newer' samples seen at Alexandra Palace earlier this year (2022) and that full production ones are still awaited.

 

At least the ARC/Yeoman ones have darker underframes...

[The Stationmaster]

On 20/09/2022 at 09:19, LaGrange said:

This is better, early days of the ARC fleet 

 

At ARC's request we ran a 5,000 tonne test train (plus a second Class 59 inside the train engine - just in case, but never powered up) out of Whatley up to Westbury.  The worst bit was going up the gradient and round the curve between Frome North and Clink Road Junction especially once the bulk of the train got onto the gradient/curve and it was the only place where the GM 'super creep' system cut into operation.  I was riding in the back cab and when the super-creep cut in it was like riding on a very large angle grinder as the loco really started to 'grip' the rail head.

 

Oddly we had got round the the curve and rising gradient from Frome West to Frome North without any trouble at all and I think that was because the gradient had been eased when the layout was altered and resignalled.  Previously it had been an awkward spot and we had a classic model railway type derailment there back in the 1970s when the middle of a train pulled off the road on the curve following the rear end hitting the gradient.

[pheaton]

38 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

At ARC's request we ran a 5,000 tonne test train (plus a second Class 59 inside the train engine - just in case, but never powered up) out of Whatley up to Westbury.  The worst bit was going up the gradient and round the curve between Frome North and Clink Road Junction especially once the bulk of the train got onto the gradient/curve and it was the only place where the GM 'super creep' system cut into operation.  I was riding in the back cab and when the super-creep cut in it was like riding on a very large angle grinder as the loco really started to 'grip' the rail head.

 

Oddly we had got round the the curve and rising gradient from Frome West to Frome North without any trouble at all and I think that was because the gradient had been eased when the layout was altered and resignalled.  Previously it had been an awkward spot and we had a classic model railway type derailment there back in the 1970s when the middle of a train pulled off the road on the curve following the rear end hitting the gradient.

are you able to say how it differs from the 60s sepex mike?

[Steadfast]

4 hours ago, pheaton said:

are you able to say how it differs from the 60s sepex mike?

Whilst I'm not Mike,  from a standing start there's a noticeable difference. 

A 59 scrabbles around, with the driver using their skill to get the train moving. Super Series cuts in once the train is moving (4 mph from memory? Don't hold me to it), and the thing just powers and there's a lot of squeal from the wheels slipping slightly.

With a 60, the computer is in control from the start, and even from a stand on a drizzly rail just smoothly gets going.

 

This comparison has been formed from watching both classes push heavy trains out of Merehead.

 

Some drivers say a 60 won't haul as much as a 59, others say they'll do more! 

 

It's a 66, but about 7 mins in listen to the 66. The high pitched squeaks are the super series slipping the wheels. It's rather loud in the cab.

 

 

 

Jo

Edited September 26, 2022 by Steadfast