Why were the Class 60s so unreliable?

[OnTheBranchline]

It’s surprising considering Brush wasn’t exactly inexperienced with building diesels at this point in time?

 

edit - at least during entry and service before modifications.

 

its pretty damning when EWS/othet freight companies decide “nah, we’ll buy another loco instead of continuing to use these relatively new ones”

Edited December 13, 2023 by OnTheBranchline

[paulbb]

I am sure that Brush would have built a prototype given time but the BR freight business at the time was facing commercial pressure to improve reliability , which was never gonna happen with class 56's, and wanted machines now. So flying in the face of hard earned experience after the 1950s pilot scheme was ditched in favour of building everything at once-with expensive consequences. So  a new class untried was wheeled out in large numbers. Is this where we talk about history repeating itself?

[Cruachan]

38 minutes ago, OnTheBranchline said:

its pretty damning when EWS/othet freight companies decide “nah, we’ll buy another loco instead of continuing to use these relatively new ones”

EWS were sole operator of the class 60 fleet post-BR sell off and appeared to have a policy against selling locos to potential competitors at the time. By the time that the class 66s were ordered the class 60s had bedded in and overcome their initial teething problems as far as I was aware, and the class 60s were an integral part of EWS' future traction policy.

 

Their storage in increasing numbers, a few years later, was more to do with the downturn in the traditional primary industries they were built to serve, particularly coal and steel, and loss of business to newer entrants to the railfreight market that resulted in more class 66s being available to cover what remained.

 

I'd have to delve through my back copies of RAIL magazine to ascertain what was the cause of their extensive teething troubles and delayed entry into service in the first instance.

Edited December 13, 2023 by Cruachan

[woodenhead]

42 minutes ago, OnTheBranchline said:

its pretty damning when EWS/othet freight companies decide “nah, we’ll buy another loco instead of continuing to use these relatively new ones”

More a case of these 31s, 33s, 37s, 47s, 56s and 60s all have their faults, some are pretty old now and we could save a massive amount on maintenance (materials, time lost due to locos laid up, facilities and training resource) if we replaced the lot with a single type of traction that can do all their jobs and be interchangeable.

 

The 60 survived because it could do somethings a class 66 couldn't but there was not enough traffic to justify a large fleet and even after a super rebuild they were not sparkling.

 

With the massive change in the UK market, the loss of most coal traffic, a massive amount of steel traffic and very little tanked product there are simply too many freight locos to go around now hence the remaining DB class 60s are up for withdrawal.

[The Stationmaster]

Were they thatn unreliable?  They took an awful long time to get into service sorting out various bugs on themy in order to get them right but I ca't immediately recall any real problem in traffic.  They were in fact a very carefully 'guarded' fleet and were prohibited in BR days from being used on engineers' trains and tended to be c very strictly kept to diagram provided all other things allowed.  They also had individual loads for every traffic flow they worked on with individual fuel consumption figures or each diagram they worked.   Nice locos to ride on with a good view forward from the cab.

[Wheatley]

Can't remember having any issues with them at Skipton on the Tilcon trains, and the only issue we had with them on the Kirby Thore gypsum was the train being too long for the loop at Howe & Co Sidings. I nearly got to use one to assist 60532 Blue Peter after some bit of pipework burst on a northbound CME once, but by the time we'd found a spare Skipton man on a Saturday afternoon the NELPG crew had whittled a new whateveritwas out of a bootlace and a pair of Val's old knickers.  The decision to seek Trainload Freight's forgiveness rather than ask permission had already been taken. 

[8K77]

Unreliable....

 

The build of the class was rushed as per the terms of the contract to build the loco. Brush Delivered a loco in 13 months after being awarded the contract to build the class. The Engine type was new a stretched version of the type that was placed into some of the 37/9's.

Given the tight timescales sadly the 1st 2 locos had a number of fault around 100 (Not all of them major) that Brush had to sort out under warranty. Given the tight timescale its hardly surprising that locos had a few faults on them.  

Into traffic as "The Stationmaster" says once all the relevant traincrew had been trained on the class and the faults ironed out and the locomotives had completed the 1000 miles fault free running. BR Trainload Freight sectors guarded the locos and monitored the locomotives performance very closely with the aid of some Brush engineers. When the class was used on the Calvert Binliner and Greater Manchester there was issues with the loco performing erratic the Brush Engineers said to just operate the "Light Loco" switch as out under 1,500ton the locos classed the trains as light!

 

BR's Trainload Sectors really evolved with the contracted tonnage on a lot of flows in the Petroleum, Metals and Aggregates sectors being delivered in longer and heaver trains. This continued under the shadow operators the only difference being in the North and Mids that the class could be used on weekend T3 trains that was formed of Air Braked stock.

English Welsh and Scottish Railway came to the fore and Jim Fisk its then Engineering Director got that the 60 was not meant to be a master of all and was a heavy freight loco and he saw the usefulness of the loco and they featured heavily in the companies traction plans. 

This was at a time when EWS was winning new traffic left right and center and the class was not yet near its 1st overhaul. 

 

1999 is when things started going wrong for the class and EWS, 1st the ousting of Ed Burkhardt has Chief Exec (Not a bad thing) the new management team came in and that was quickly followed by another that wanted to "Sweat" the assist's. The company through no fault of its own in 2001/02 lost 30% of its business with Corus Steel closing Llanwern to Steel Production and Closing Ebbw Vale and Shelton and reducing its production at Lackenby. 

This was also with the loss of the cement traffic out of Earls sidings to Freightliner Heavy Haul (This should have been a warning they should have took more seriously) The company also lost its foothold on coal traffic as well with Heavy Haul being successful in winning some of that traffic.  With the loss of traffic and a new fleet of 66s the accountants dictated to eek it out as long as they could with sanctioning money for 60 repairs. The main reason being to operate a Class 60 is double the cost of a 66 Sadly and so it became the norm for the locos to be running on 5 traction motors or 4 motors for months. So with the continued loss of work not all EWS's fault the locos just got laid up when the repairs was expensive. 

 

The class have been good performers but not without issues the Doplar Radar that controls the locos slow speed control is not brilliant in wet conditions it caused nothing but issues when its raining or in the wet. The big achilleas heel for the class was the engine guvnor this was always an issue and a few had been trilled over the years and the one in them now is  the best one in the class. Its a great testament to Brush Traction that locos managed 20 years before the 1st overhaul that was in the region of 900k per loco. If the locos had have still been maintained the way that Trainload Freight CM&EE set out they would have been the best they could be. But with North American Railroaders buying the UK freight business they expected our locomotives to act and behave like they do in the US and that wasn't case hence why they wanted GM locos switch on and leave on and spend some money every 20 years on them. 

 

8K77

[DavidB-AU]

The silly thing is BR could have bought a tried and tested loco off the shelf. The class 60 only happened because BR simply wanted to buy class 59s (which in turn happened because Foster Yeoman was so annoyed with the class 56) but was too scared of union reactions. Even then, EMD and GEC were invited to respond to the class 60 competitive tender and essentially proposed the same thing. EMD proposed building class 59s at Crewe with fabrication subcontracted to GEC. GEC proposed building their own body shell at Crewe with the same engine and traction equipment as the 59 built under licence. The evaluation of the tenders was completely bizarre with Metro-Cammell's vapourware of mix and match components rated higher than GEC and union pressure to find reasons to reject EMD.

 

The end result of going with Brush was initially 250 and ultimately 480 class 66s being built imported anyway. Had the EMD or GEC bid been accepted, the Crewe-based production line could have made the 66s too. Including the 170+ built for elsewhere in Europe.

[37114]

The Edward Gleed book on the class 60s is worth a read and is insightful. As has been mentioned basically the build to deployment timescales (13 months) were unrealistic for a new frame up design of loco as politically the order was destined for a UK builder, effectively ruling out the class 59. Once the niggles/faults were sorted they seem to be reliable, the problems came when the power units got up to 20,000 hours and they were prone to major failure.  

[Rugd1022]

As someone who's driven almost half of the class I'd say they were a very reliable workhorse, during the time I was with EWS I only ever had one failure on a '60 and that was due to a braking problem. I certainly miss them, the cabs were quite small but they were very comfortable and enjoyable to drive, with that lovely deep rumble behind you when you opened them up.

 

 

[Oldddudders]

A colleague was Project Director for the 60s, as he had been for the 92s and no doubt other major rolling stock projects before that. Their ‘acceptance’ by BR was seen to be critical to Brush’s share price, the market knew this and was watching, and as it was August Bank Holiday weekend, the Board Members concerned were off on leave so it was left to him to decide by Tuesday morning……

 

ISTR busting headbolts was an early flaw, and some facility was set up at March to remedy this? 

[45125]

I was a Technical Instructor on the 60s when new, they did  have a few issues when first introduced. some of this was. due to staff been unfamiliar with them, plus certain items weren't quite up to the the duties required of them. The doppler radar was a slight problem on certain surfaces, plus it original position picked up thing it should have done.... the Woodwward governor was a problem with various mods done to them over the years.There was a fuel contamination problem when new on some locos, mainly a bacterial infection.

 

Once they settled down they became very reliable. One suspects that once the Red empire took over things went done quite the same way as a previous years.

 

Have had a few cab trips on them on oil trains from Lindsey to Leeds, I always found them to be solid performers on such trains moving 2800t trains with ease, it was just getting to 60mph took a while but once there they would stay there for ages. Also had a couple of rides on the iron ores to Santon including a start on the bank, very impressive.

 

A shame that none were ever geared for 75mph , admittedly that would problably led to a load reduction. 

 

Al Taylor

[jjb1970]

As others have said, many of the problems were largely around inducting a new design with a very aggressive delivery schedule. Once settled in they seem to have been good machines, I seem to recall that the prime mover was significantly more efficient than the EMD 645 engine.

[ERIC ALLTORQUE]

On 14/12/2023 at 07:58, 37114 said:

The Edward Gleed book on the class 60s is worth a read and is insightful. As has been mentioned basically the build to deployment timescales (13 months) were unrealistic for a new frame up design of loco as politically the order was destined for a UK builder, effectively ruling out the class 59. Once the niggles/faults were sorted they seem to be reliable, the problems came when the power units got up to 20,000 hours and they were prone to major failure.  

This is where the EMD engine is so well thought out with the piston cylinder being a removable and replaceable part, the Amarican engine is well thought out and sorted over a long time as they went diesel way back when.

[jjb1970]

I am not so sure the EMD engine arrangement was that good. Overhauling a piston on a small-ish medium or high speed engine isn't much of a job and on high quality fuel they shouldn't require especially frequent maintenance. Most other engine builders kept the more traditional arrangement. Fuel use was never a strong point of the two stroke EMD engines, and the newer four stroke moved away from many of their older design trademarks.

[russ p]

I passed out on 60s very soon after first ones were built and I can't ever recall failing with one I do remember the Tinsley training loco failing but was just piloting a 37 on a steel train 

The Tinsley instructor who is great bloke and an active member on here suggested that we should have loose shunted it into the lines of scrap loco then in the yards

I went on to instruct on them and there was always plenty of room on them.

FAR nicer loco to work with than a 66

Surprised no one has fitted a different power unit to one. With DB seemingly having financial issues I fear that mass scrapping sadly probably isn't far away 

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, ERIC ALLTORQUE said:

This is where the EMD engine is so well thought out with the piston cylinder being a removable and replaceable part, the Amarican engine is well thought out and sorted over a long time as they went diesel way back when.

Bur the 59s had some clear indications of not being very cleverly thought out - such as the near impossible situtaion when it came to getting lube oil into the engine.  The engine was laid out for a 'hood' style body with easy access from both sides - it wasn't so clever for access in a 'carbody' design.

 

Comparison between a 60 and 66 isn'r over clever because the design philosophy statred frm two very different places with the UK design very much in the servicing depot visit at regular intervals mould while the 66 was typically US 'service it anywhere' approach with longer spells between visiting a maintenance depot.  Hence - for example - some sort of fuelling facility (not necessarily entirely legal when it came to fuel handling) was provided at various customers' terminals where a loco could be fuelled and give na checkover by a Fitter who turned up in a van with the fuel coming from a small storage tank or a road tanker.  BR had been prosecuted at various times for using fuelling facilities that were better than that but still far from top notch and having no, or very poor, interceptor capacity.  I know of two locations with no sort of interceptor, or indeed much else, where EWS fuelled 66s.

[45125]

3 hours ago, ERIC ALLTORQUE said:

This is where the EMD engine is so well thought out with the piston cylinder being a removable and replaceable part, the Amarican engine is well thought out and sorted over a long time as they went diesel way back when.

The Mirrlees lump was was quite a well thought design, the big end was removable without disturbing other items, cylinder head and big end bolts were all easily removed and refitted by stretching the bolts and tightening/loosening the nuts by hand.. The only drawbacks with the 60s was the max speed and size of the fuel tank.

 

Immingham to Langley couldn't be done without going for fuel whilst at Langley. First couple of runs expired around Lincoln on the return when out of Fuel. 

 

Al Taylor

[jjb1970]

Preloaded hydraulically stretched bolts are pretty much standard for the cylinder head, holding down, bottom end and crosshead fasteners on large engines. They make life a lot easier, though the jacks are huge on big engines and can be a handful to mount/dismount.

[Max Legroom]

I've always wondered why the class 60s were built as a completely new loco rather than a development of the class 58 platform with advanced wheelslip protection etc added. It seemed a strange decision when the 58 was a simplified modular version of the 56.

[spamcan61]

5 minutes ago, Max Legroom said:

I've always wondered why the class 60s were built as a completely new loco rather than a development of the class 58 platform with advanced wheelslip protection etc added. It seemed a strange decision when the 58 was a simplified modular version of the 56.

Business politics usually overules engineering...

[The Stationmaster]

3 hours ago, Max Legroom said:

I've always wondered why the class 60s were built as a completely new loco rather than a development of the class 58 platform with advanced wheelslip protection etc added. It seemed a strange decision when the 58 was a simplified modular version of the 56.

The 58 wasn't (fortunately, a development of the ill-fated 56 but a separate design reportedly incorporating lessons learned from tthe. shambles that was the 56.  The 60 was reallya quest for a d far more capable design incorporating some new technology.  So it was a very different sort of animal from the 58 which had been designed - it was claimed at the time  - with an eye on export potential hence its body style.

[woodenhead]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

The 58 wasn't (fortunately, a development of the ill-fated 56 but a separate design reportedly incorporating lessons learned from tthe. shambles that was the 56.  The 60 was reallya quest for a d far more capable design incorporating some new technology.  So it was a very different sort of animal from the 58 which had been designed - it was claimed at the time  - with an eye on export potential hence its body style.

And eventually they were exported!

 

Just too late for BR and it was the original build not an overseas order.

[C126]

Do not know if this is of interest, but this was the first time 60 001 crept round the side of the Brush Works, I was told:

 

 

23d June, 1989.  Thought I had posted it elsewhere, but can not see it.

 

 

Edited December 20, 2023 by C126
Grammar : thought there were two pics.

[simon b]

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

The 58 wasn't (fortunately, a development of the ill-fated 56 but a separate design reportedly incorporating lessons learned from tthe. shambles that was the 56.  The 60 was reallya quest for a d far more capable design incorporating some new technology.  So it was a very different sort of animal from the 58 which had been designed - it was claimed at the time  - with an eye on export potential hence its body style.

 

Was the 56 that bad? I know their reliability figure led to the 59, but I didn't think they were any worse than other classes of loco at that time. They are still in use after all...