Class 56: Why Romania and what were Brush actually expecting in terms of build quality from them?

[rodent279]

20 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Availability and reliability are two very different things and the latter isa lso very much driven by casualty rates which were measeured on BR by then by a standard method.  Simple fact was that 59s had very low casualty rates and in some cases faults (although not casualties) were down to British equipment fitted to teh loco and not anything GM had done.

 

The 59s did havea small but rather awkward design fault arising from the fact that a standard engine had been put into a carbody design instead of the more usual US approach so - according to hat I heard from someone at Yeomans - it was difficult to top up engine lube oil.

 

As far as reliability goes, but also a commentary on availability I never heard ofa Yeomans canceling a train because the booked loco wasn't available.  So however availabo;ity was claculated wasn't entirely relevant because the locos met their availability target.  A big factor with the 59s was GM's  customer support service which Yeomans already had experience of (with their GM switcher)  before ordering the 59s and it was a factor in the decision to order them.  Any maintenance or fault queries were telexed to GM and there was a round-the-clock service desk that dealt with them,  Similarly any parts required, up to and including one ton in weight, were guaranteed to be supplied within 24 hours of being ordered - order by telex and simply send a vehicle  up to Heathrow to collect once they knew which aircraft the part would be on.   Add in the dedicated maintenance approach explained above by 'Steadfast' and you can quickly understand we're looking at something very different from the normal British approach.

 

 That sort of service would have staggered many BR maintenance depot managers with UVS (Urgent Vehicle Standing) orders in for days or weeks for some parts with vehicles or locos out of traffic when they couldn't even get bolts of a particular size and had to beg or borrow from another depot.

 

So it was as much better product support from the manufacturer and better maintenance regimes as it was a better product?

[Mike_Walker]

Yes but the quality of the product is born out by the performance of the 66s in every day service compared to their BR equivalents despite not getting the TLC lavished on the 59s.

[kevinlms]

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

 

 

The 59s did havea small but rather awkward design fault arising from the fact that a standard engine had been put into a carbody design instead of the more usual US approach so - according to hat I heard from someone at Yeomans - it was difficult to top up engine lube oil.

 

 

 

Who needs that, topping up oil is for wimps!

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, rodent279 said:

So it was as much better product support from the manufacturer and better maintenance regimes as it was a better product?

Yes,  But that apart you took them out of the box (so to speak) and they worj ked forst time and every time doing exactly what they were designed to do and nmatching the specification teh manufacturer had been given.

 

In sharp  ciontrast we seemed to have to wait forever for the 60s to actually be released to traffic although by then we had received all the necessary performance information we needed for planning puroses.  But unlike the 59s the 'real' performance information for the 60s came after they'd had undergone loads of testing and trials whereas the 59s came with their detailed performance stated and a couple of tests which were carried out quickly proved there was no need for any further testing.  The 60s could definitely shift the specified loads and were pretty good at it but the fuel consumption figures had to be assessed from test data and their fuel performance was rather critical for diagram planning purposes.  

 

But - as I've mentioned before - the figures we were given for fuel consumption were very accurate and on one occasion when a Driver decided not to go for fuel 'because there was plenty showing on the gauge' the loco ran out of fuel within a handful of miles of the predicted location at which it would run out of fuel.   And you could hardly call the 60s a 'general user' fleet' when they first entered service as they were only permitted to be used on their diagrammed work and they were totally barred from working engineering dept trains of any sort or anything else other than their originally diagramed turns at weekends.

[Mike_Walker]

4 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Yes,  But that apart you took them out of the box (so to speak) and they worj ked forst time and every time doing exactly what they were designed to do and nmatching the specification teh manufacturer had been given.

59002 didn't!  Jack Whelihan, one of EMD's senior field engineers, once told me how embarrassing it was when it sat down in front of an audience of BR types and enthusiasts at Woodborough on its first trip especially as the fault was a simple one that should have been spotted before it left La Grange!

[jjb1970]

EMD were very serious about service and support from day one of the company, it was one of the reasons they rose so quickly. Without the baggage of an existing steam locomotive heritage they approached the whole business with a clean sheet and new eyes and realized that what railways needed wasn't so much a locomotive as a capability to power trains and that total cost was much more important than up-front capital cost. That may sound blindingly obvious, but it's quite a fundamental difference as if you look at things in terms of what do I need to move trains across a network and cost over lifetime the answers to what you need may be very different than just looking at locomotives. Things like availability, time needed for servicing, spares availability and support and finance packages come to the fore. EMD were pioneers in putting together attractive finance products to help customers, put a lot of effort into customer training programs and prioritized product support. All things which may be obvious but which clearly weren't that obvious at the time. 

 

It's still a big issue for organizations that operate large and expensive assets. I remember sitting through a meeting in which a senior RN officer asked why they needed a new frigate and what it was for. Some groaned and saw it as some management consulting speak bit of time wasting but it was actually a very pertinent question. What they needed was a set of capabilities, that may be best provided by a frigate but understanding that was important in informing the specification process rather than the default of looking at what they already had and then how to make a better version of it.

[OnTheBranchline]

On 09/08/2023 at 13:37, keefer said:

I have read over the years that the greater reliability/availability of the 59s was partly down to following the GM recommended maintenance regime, which was more stringent/involved than a general BR-type maintenance scheme. Whether this was contracted into the support package, I don't know.

When the 66s came along, they were maintained according to the existing British practice, a less detailed  process.

I think it mostly came down to cost as the GM regime was more expensive to follow.

 

Didn't Yeomans own the engines so they could afford to spend more on maintenance and pass the costs to their customers better than BR ever could with their own diesels?

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, OnTheBranchline said:

 

Didn't Yeomans own the engines so they could afford to spend more on maintenance and pass the costs to their customers better than BR ever could with their own diesels?

The stone business doesn't work like that.  The whole ppint of using rail transport was to reduce the cost per ton at the location where it was sold to the end customer and thus gain access to new markets.  And the bigger a train's payload the lower the cost per ton hauled and therefore the lower the cost (or higher the profit) at the point of sale to the customer - and that was the whole point of buying the 59s.  

 

John Yeoman was nobody's fool and he had rebuilt the quarry's business from near moribund and a very local operation to one with a much bigger market area on that basis with some very good railway people to help him on his way by using rail to reduce the costs at the point of sale and thus capture new markets.  That in turn made the quarrying operation much more efficient by allowing bigger machines to be justified (a 50 ton capacity front bucket loader is quite a sight to see working) which also helped reduce the cost per ton at point of production.

 

Yeoman had bought an SW1001 switcher. in 1980 for the same reason, - the ex BR 350ho shunters it owned were approaching tje end of their life and greater power was needed to handle bigger rafts of wagons at the quarry - again economies of scale.  And EMD's after sales service with the SW1001 was a thing which helped make up Yeoman's mind when it came to bigger locos.  Plus having their own fleet was intended also to improve reliability by eliminating train cancellations due to BR s traction shortages or failures which again helped reduce costs.

 

Finally the biggie was being able to run a. 5,000 ton train to the London area instead of a couple of smaller trains (=further cost reductions) and then distribute parts of the ' jumbo train' (as it was called) from there to various depots served by forward services or trips from Acton.  The idea of the 12,000 ton trial was to see if it was possible to even further reduce the number of trains although it was also intended as something of a PR exercise plus simply seeing if it really was feasible

[PM47079]

On 10/08/2023 at 11:40, Mike_Walker said:

Yes but the quality of the product is born out by the performance of the 66s in every day service compared to their BR equivalents despite not getting the TLC lavished on the 59s.

It's more to do with an extremely efficient spare parts situation. Being at the coal face so to speak, there are still plenty of failures to deal with, but instead of the BR way of designing new locos with parts specific to the loco class which then resulted in locos being used as Christmas trees. The GM fleet has a lot of locos types that share parts and as has been mentioned the parts availability is excellent enabling locos to be turned round days rather than weeks. Add to that the design of the 66 means you can remove the roof and side sections put them to one side and have excellent access to repair the loco.

[e30ftw]

Its hard not to look back at late British rail diesels as being a bit of a failure if not a disappointment, or the very least missed opportunity. With class's 56 , 58 and 60 not the reliable power houses they should have been. Was the American take over inevitable? With so much more experience with diesels, much heaver trains over a much greater mileage and punishing commercial pressure to create a great reliable product that BREL or Brush just couldn't match.

 

With vast majority of 56's and 58's scraped and a few upgraded 60's out on the network while fellow class mates have been rotting away in sidings for years. Compared to the 59 and 66 that apart from collisions are all still working out the box from coming of the ship as delivered. Have the early machines even been through a heavy overhaul? with complete tear downs as per BR practice?

[eldomtom2]

41 minutes ago, e30ftw said:

Was the American take over inevitable?

Maybe, but it was a short one. I doubt we shall see any more orders from American manufacturers for the UK market for a long time - there's no market left for pure diesels.

[e30ftw]

1 hour ago, eldomtom2 said:

Maybe, but it was a short one. I doubt we shall see any more orders from American manufacturers for the UK market for a long time - there's no market left for pure diesels.

Yes they are to reliable for there own good, why would you order new with only marginal improvements over what we have, that said the 70 doesn't seem to be a run away success.

 

The reasons for no more orders is purely political, due to the EU emission laws, this is why we have seen "rebuilt" loco class 69.

[kevinlms]

9 hours ago, e30ftw said:

Yes they are to reliable for there own good, why would you order new with only marginal improvements over what we have, that said the 70 doesn't seem to be a run away success.

 

The reasons for no more orders is purely political, due to the EU emission laws, this is why we have seen "rebuilt" loco class 69.

But wasn't the point of Brexit, to tell the EU that their 'excessive regulations' weren't wanted?

[jjb1970]

22 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

But wasn't the point of Brexit, to tell the EU that their 'excessive regulations' weren't wanted?

 

Not in the case of emissions, no. The UK was a driver of tougher EU emissions regulation.

[phil-b259]

4 hours ago, kevinlms said:

But wasn't the point of Brexit, to tell the EU that their 'excessive regulations' weren't wanted?

 

Well if you listen to certain politicians / ex politicians / right wing media etc the answer would be 'yes'

 

However we cannot similarity turn around to the planets atmosphere and 'leave' the current one in favour of one which doesn't care how CO2 we pump into it can we! Nor can we magically banish dirty air in our cities which we know causes serious health issues and although emissions from railway locos might be small in the overall context of things today - once most cars are electric....

 

Therefore in the real world its right and proper UK emissions regulations remain in step (or are preferably even stricter) than EU ones.

 

UK locomotive operators / owners know this and as such are not interested in new build pure diesels - they are a dead end technology which could end up having a far shorter active life than is needed to justify the investment.

 

Hence we get the situation where some are bringing back older locos (class 56) to tide them over for the next decade or so while others are testing out bi mode (electric diesel) or tri mode (electro diesel with batteries) as solutions.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 14, 2023 by phil-b259

[OnTheBranchline]

On 13/08/2023 at 20:42, phil-b259 said:

 

Well if you listen to certain politicians / ex politicians / right wing media etc the answer would be 'yes'

 

However we cannot similarity turn around to the planets atmosphere and 'leave' the current one in favour of one which doesn't care how CO2 we pump into it can we! Nor can we magically banish dirty air in our cities which we know causes serious health issues and although emissions from railway locos might be small in the overall context of things today - once most cars are electric....

 

Therefore in the real world its right and proper UK emissions regulations remain in step (or are preferably even stricter) than EU ones.

 

UK locomotive operators / owners know this and as such are not interested in new build pure diesels - they are a dead end technology which could end up having a far shorter active life than is needed to justify the investment.

 

Hence we get the situation where some are bringing back older locos (class 56) to tide them over for the next decade or so while others are testing out bi mode (electric diesel) or tri mode (electro diesel with batteries) as solutions.

 

 

 

 

what about solar power?

 

might not work in tunnels though…

 

😆

Edited August 15, 2023 by OnTheBranchline

[Talltim]

3 hours ago, OnTheBranchline said:

what about solar power?

 

might not work in tunnels though…

 

😆

Just make sure all the tunnels are downhill..

[Hesperus]

There were a few mentions of the Romanian car industry earlier in the thread.  I run an old Renault 12 based Dacia 1310 so know a bit about it.

 

Back in the 60s Romanian politicians decided they needed a car industry so spoke to western car makers about a joint venture.  Talks went quite well with Rootes and Ford but Renault was eventually chosen.  They had a basic but modern design in progress that the Romanians could build too.  The factory was built so quickly that the car wasn't ready so they assembled a few hundred Renault 10s from kits as the Dacia 1000.  Soon enough (1969) the new design was ready and Dacia 1300s were rolling off the production line slightly before the Renault 12 they were based on.

 

The 12 ended production in France in 1979 but the 1300 was facelifted into the 1310 and stayed in production till 2005 with occasional (fairly unsuccessful) imports to the west.

 

In the early 80s a smaller car entered production with a different company.  Called the Oltcit it was a joint venture with Citroen based on a prototype that had been killed off in the Peugeot takeover.  Not as successful as the Dacia far less survive although it was more successful as an export as some were sold in Western Europe as the Citroen Axel.

 

My white Dacia pictured with an Oltcit that used to belong to a friend.

[PM47079]

On 13/08/2023 at 13:52, e30ftw said:

Its hard not to look back at late British rail diesels as being a bit of a failure if not a disappointment, or the very least missed opportunity. With class's 56 , 58 and 60 not the reliable power houses they should have been. Was the American take over inevitable? With so much more experience with diesels, much heaver trains over a much greater mileage and punishing commercial pressure to create a great reliable product that BREL or Brush just couldn't match.

 

With vast majority of 56's and 58's scraped and a few upgraded 60's out on the network while fellow class mates have been rotting away in sidings for years. Compared to the 59 and 66 that apart from collisions are all still working out the box from coming of the ship as delivered. Have the early machines even been through a heavy overhaul? with complete tear downs as per BR practice?

Not an overhaul as such, components get changed out as and when required. And the same for the bogies. The power units have what they call power pack changes when required. Power pack assemblies’ consisting of a cylinder head, cylinder liner, piston, piston carrier and piston rod which can be individually replaced relatively easily and quickly. The connecting rods use a simple system of fork rods on one bank of cylinders and blade rods on the other. 

The locos have all had engine work, some had what they called an X exam at Loughborough some years back, which involved lifting the power unit out as the bedplates needed welding as the vibration of the engine which was not resiliently mounted to the frame like a 59 was cracking the bedplate. (This was obvious to see when there was always a build up of oil and gunk on top of the fuel tanks) and some other work was carried out.

At the moment the cabs are being refurbished inside and out which includes a significant amount of corrosion repairs round the front windows. You can quite often see rust streaks below the front windscreens on the untreated locos.

But to get back on topic, it's not so much overhauls these days it's more heavy exams changing only what's needed 

[Pete the Elaner]

On 15/08/2023 at 10:45, OnTheBranchline said:

what about solar power?

 

might not work in tunnels though…

 

😆

 

Storage then power distribution via OLE.

 

I thought this thread was supposed to be about the build quality of early 56s?

[The Johnster]

On 29/07/2023 at 15:48, Edwin_m said:

I recall advertising in the UK for the Dacia Denim which was by appearances a badge-engineered Renault 12.  They may have done the same with other models too.  

 

General Motors UK sold the entire Hillman Avenger production line to China, and British Leyland did the same with the Morris Marina, to Iraq.  Fiat of course sold their 1500 to the Russians who made it as the Lada.

 

Knew a block up the pub in the 90s who was a taxi driver, knew him didn't like him, horrible man, but he was very upset when his boss took his Merc off him and gave him a Lada.  He tried to kill it by taking it out on to Cardiff's Eastern Avenue bypass, on which 70 was allowed in those days, flooring down the hill to get up to about 85, put it into reverse and let the clutch out.  There was a lot of noise, some smoke, the car slowed down quite rapidly, he let the clutch back in, put her in neutral and rolled on to the hard shoulder.  He then radioed in to say he'd broken down and thought he'd put a rod through the crankcase.  Boss came out to supervise and call out the breakdown boys, and got in the driver's seat, turned the ignition key, and the car started first time, settling staight into an even tickover.  They drove it back to base without incident and the guy would never have anything but Ladas after that! 

 

I had one for a while, the double-headlight super sporty 1600, 0-60 in less than a week!  It had faux-leather seats and was quite comfortable, at least until you made it move, then things deteriorated a bit... There were plus points; you could leave the windows open, keys in the ignition, and the engine running and it would still be there when you got back, and not many people bothered you for lifts.  And, as you'd expect from a Russian car, the heater was superb, if noisy.  The twin headlights were the best on any car I've ever had.  And before you ask, yes, it did have a rear windscreen heater.

 

That apart it was pretty dire, but we had a lot of fun with it!  I called it Ivan, because it was terrible...  But at least it wasn't a Moskvitch!

[rodent279]

On 16/08/2023 at 23:34, PM47079 said:

Not an overhaul as such, components get changed out as and when required. And the same for the bogies. The power units have what they call power pack changes when required. Power pack assemblies’ consisting of a cylinder head, cylinder liner, piston, piston carrier and piston rod which can be individually replaced relatively easily and quickly. The connecting rods use a simple system of fork rods on one bank of cylinders and blade rods on the other. 

The locos have all had engine work, some had what they called an X exam at Loughborough some years back, which involved lifting the power unit out as the bedplates needed welding as the vibration of the engine which was not resiliently mounted to the frame like a 59 was cracking the bedplate. (This was obvious to see when there was always a build up of oil and gunk on top of the fuel tanks) and some other work was carried out.

At the moment the cabs are being refurbished inside and out which includes a significant amount of corrosion repairs round the front windows. You can quite often see rust streaks below the front windscreens on the untreated locos.

But to get back on topic, it's not so much overhauls these days it's more heavy exams changing only what's needed 

Didn't BR call it CEM - Component Exchange Maintenance? Which is how it should be really, diesels & electrics should not need complete strip down & rebuild every 5 years, like steam locos did.

[PM47079]

Yes exactly that, No big strip down and rebuild anymore. This method works just as well and in theory they are back out earning money for their owners nice and quickly 

[47164]

One challenge sometimes overlooked, is I believe that the 56 power units were all trucked out to Romania and during the winter, where the road network was fairly basic.

 

Another sale to note was the Hillman hunter tooling to Iran , which was an immense success for that nation, current travelogues still show many popping up …. Although their numbers seem to be overtaken now by Peugeot 405’s which were made there from 1992 until 2022…. And still made in Azerbaijan (per Wikipedia).

 

 

 

 

[Matt37268]

3 hours ago, 47164 said:

One challenge sometimes overlooked, is I believe that the 56 power units were all trucked out to Romania and during the winter, where the road network was fairly basic.

 

 

 

 

Wasn’t there a problem with one of them getting stuck on a mountainside road over there?