Why were the Class 60s so unreliable?

[45125]

9 minutes ago, simon b said:

 

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...

^The 56s weren't too bad, it was just the work they were but on. MGR trains with lots of plodding along at Low speed and long periods of low engine speed didn't do the power units much good. When used on some other flows they were a lot happier.

[Pannier Tank]

On 17/12/2023 at 15:35, russ p said:

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 

 

Isn't 60 014 at EMD Longport for that very reason?

 

[The Stationmaster]

59 minutes ago, simon b said:

 

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...

Even worse!  It started from the wrong design premise by using the original Class 47 drawings 'because it was a reliable ;ooco' - but of course n by then the 47'as had gone through so many Mods and changes their reseemblance to the original design in many areas of detail was long gone.  hence the new design suffered some of the exact same faults that the Brush Type 4s had suffered from when new.  Add in the abysmal standard of construction and substandard materials used in the Romanian built examples and you had a poor design badly built using rubbish material - not a good place to start!

[newbryford]

On 14/12/2023 at 06:37, DavidB-AU said:

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.

 

Wasn't part of the reason (along with political and union influences) for buying the 60s the "whole life cost" which included fuel over a specific number of years in the equations?

The Mirrlees lump in the 60 is reputed to be one of the most frugal in the business - especially when compared to a 2-stroke GM645

[russ p]

4 hours ago, Pannier Tank said:

 

Isn't 60 014 at EMD Longport for that very reason?

 

 

It's possible but not sure who would want it as DB have stated they want rid of them in favour of regeared 66s

As stated in another post the GM engine uses fr more fuel than the mirlees  so a 60 EMD would need a much bigger fuel tank. Would be nice especially with a smaller class 60 silencer on the GM

[newbryford]

11 minutes ago, russ p said:

 

It's possible but not sure who would want it as DB have stated they want rid of them in favour of regeared 66s

As stated in another post the GM engine uses fr more fuel than the mirlees  so a 60 EMD would need a much bigger fuel tank. Would be nice especially with a smaller class 60 silencer on the GM

 

IIRC a bigger fuel tank (for increased range) on the 66s was a weight trade off for for lighter electrical gear (motors/alternator) compared to the 59.

Part of the reason why a 66 can't drag like a 59. 

As well as the higher speed gearing.

 

Where's Roger Ford when you need him?

Edited December 20, 2023 by newbryford

[russ p]

1 hour ago, newbryford said:

 

IIRC a bigger fuel tank (for increased range) on the 66s was a weight trade off for for lighter electrical gear (motors/alternator) compared to the 59.

Part of the reason why a 66 can't drag like a 59. 

As well as the higher speed gearing.

 

Where's Roger Ford when you need him?

66 is also quite a bit lighter than the 59 as it has 4 less cylinders and no engine mounts.  Most horrible loco I've ever worked with 

[Cruachan]

13 hours ago, russ p said:

 

It's possible but not sure who would want it as DB have stated they want rid of them in favour of regeared 66s

It's being assessed by GB Railfreight, who own this loco along with 60004 and 60018.

Edited December 21, 2023 by Cruachan

[45125]

Is 60004 actually 60003, it was said that 60004 was to be the training loco for the maintenance staff, and was due to be delivered by a set date in 1991. However 04 was nowhere near ready but 03 was and there identities were swapped over to conform to contract.

 

Al Taylor

[90136]

On 14/12/2023 at 11:00, Rugd1022 said:

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.

 

 

Much preferred them on ballast trains over the 66’s. I spent a weeks doing auto hopper drops between Nuneaton and Rugby. Usually one of us in the cab and a few guys on the hoppers with shovels just in case. Even had a couple on Sea Cows. 

[rob D2]

I’ve been rereading a ton of old Rail mags ,

apparantly the availability  of the 60 was about 85% and the 66 was 95% - you can guess what the EWS yanks preferred 

[NorthEndCab]

Some of the the old hands at work were involved with the testing of the 60’s when they were being developed. 
 

One (possibly apocryphal) story they like to tell (over and over) is during the testing to see what the maximum load a 60 could start on the level they kept hooking wagons on until it wouldn’t move, eventually with only a couple of wagons left in the yard the train stopped inching forward, but then they noticed that it was instead moving the rails themselves in the chairs towards the stop blocks. 

[Covkid]

The answer to the original question is - they weren't unduly unreliable, but there is an important point here.  The BR system involved a number of TMDs across the country and if a loco needed a repair of a bit of treatment, it mostly went to the local depot. When EWS took over from BR there was a concerted effort to close TMDs and move towards just a few super depots like Toton and Crewe IEMD.  So if a loco had a failure it was often needed to be moved back to the superdepot for repair, but via a circuitous route because EWS didn't like non essential light locomotive moves.

 

This scenario continues and IIRC 66092 has spent many many months (nearly a year) trying to get from South Wales to Toton for wheelset fettling.  In BR days the loco would have gone to Margam and been lifted for a replacement wheels or bogie.  These days I think it was hauled from South Wales to Gloucester, then Gloucester - Didcot. 

 

From my memories they were fairly solid and reliable, if boring diesels. which just got on with the job in hand.  The first issue involved the driver side windows, where the two piece windows were in the wrong place for the driver to see out of.  Thus the drivers have new three piece screens whilst the secondman's side retained the as built windows.

 

Operationally the biggest problem was the "culture shock" for drivers.  Inside the engine room there is a matrix of LEDs for faulting and maintenance.  If there was a steady light showing on the panel the fault had already been logged and in most cases the driver didn't need to take any action.  It was only when those twinkly little LEDs were flashing that notice needed to be taken !!! One "benefit" was that traction motors could be isolated individually rather than in pairs as traditional diesel locos.  We were told a 60 could (and did) run for days and even weeks with a motor isolated, and with no load reduction either. 

[45125]

1 hour ago, Covkid said:

The answer to the original question is - they weren't unduly unreliable, but there is an important point here.  The BR system involved a number of TMDs across the country and if a loco needed a repair of a bit of treatment, it mostly went to the local depot. When EWS took over from BR there was a concerted effort to close TMDs and move towards just a few super depots like Toton and Crewe IEMD.  So if a loco had a failure it was often needed to be moved back to the superdepot for repair, but via a circuitous route because EWS didn't like non essential light locomotive moves.

 

This scenario continues and IIRC 66092 has spent many many months (nearly a year) trying to get from South Wales to Toton for wheelset fettling.  In BR days the loco would have gone to Margam and been lifted for a replacement wheels or bogie.  These days I think it was hauled from South Wales to Gloucester, then Gloucester - Didcot. 

 

From my memories they were fairly solid and reliable, if boring diesels. which just got on with the job in hand.  The first issue involved the driver side windows, where the two piece windows were in the wrong place for the driver to see out of.  Thus the drivers have new three piece screens whilst the secondman's side retained the as built windows.

 

Operationally the biggest problem was the "culture shock" for drivers.  Inside the engine room there is a matrix of LEDs for faulting and maintenance.  If there was a steady light showing on the panel the fault had already been logged and in most cases the driver didn't need to take any action.  It was only when those twinkly little LEDs were flashing that notice needed to be taken !!! One "benefit" was that traction motors could be isolated individually rather than in pairs as traditional diesel locos.  We were told a 60 could (and did) run for days and even weeks with a motor isolated, and with no load reduction either. 

As a Technical Trainer  on these when they were new they did have a few issues when new, which were resolved by Brush and the various depots, they settled down quickly after this to be reliable. With any faults quickly resolved at local level, as Covkid has mentioned. Most of the freight depots could solve most issues, with only some of the major issues requiring trips back to home depot.

 

With EWS closing/reducing the outbases, it quickly could be seen that certain types of faults would require locos working back to the centralised depots for repair, some of which were very minor faults which could have been fixed locally had a depot remained open or by a a man in a van.

 

I know of one instance of a senior EWS manager visiting a depot and asking what the 350 shunters were doing in the shed, the local supervisor told they were on Exam. Several weeks later the same manager visited again he saw the 350s and he was told they were still on exam due other worked load. He had them withdrawn there and then. The depot was on minimum staff level at the time so other work load took precedent. EWS at the time  just seemed not to be able to grasp the actual day to day running of the railway.

[8K77]

On 24/03/2024 at 13:04, 45125 said:

As a Technical Trainer  on these when they were new they did have a few issues when new, which were resolved by Brush and the various depots, they settled down quickly after this to be reliable. With any faults quickly resolved at local level, as Covkid has mentioned. Most of the freight depots could solve most issues, with only some of the major issues requiring trips back to home depot.

 

With EWS closing/reducing the outbases, it quickly could be seen that certain types of faults would require locos working back to the centralised depots for repair, some of which were very minor faults which could have been fixed locally had a depot remained open or by a a man in a van.

 

I know of one instance of a senior EWS manager visiting a depot and asking what the 350 shunters were doing in the shed, the local supervisor told they were on Exam. Several weeks later the same manager visited again he saw the 350s and he was told they were still on exam due other worked load. He had them withdrawn there and then. The depot was on minimum staff level at the time so other work load took precedent. EWS at the time  just seemed not to be able to grasp the actual day to day running of the railway.

 

The gent in your last lines of your post sound very much like Keith Heller. Like him or loath him Keith an North Canadian Rail Roader had a tight grip on cost control and how to stop it from getting out of control unlike Mr Burkhardt who if I am being brutally honest Business Acumen let him down. His vision was to be admired he enchanted the staff as he was a true Railwayman in every sense of the word but a Business man... No. 

To a certain extent you are right the right rasping the day to day running of the railway seemed to be hard to do at times. For me the reason the Yanks found it really really difficult to get the heads round how things worked in the UK and as time has marched the Germans to a certain extent struggle with the same. EWS had some very very competent people in its Middle and Lower Management teams but they sadly never made it to the Top Table. The Yanks had an expectation of seeing things done like they do in America. 

The loco control team leaders used to shudder when they herd the Bosses from the US was visiting as they knew that they could marching down to see them asking why there 7 locos at Peterborough not attached to trains and why wasn't the trains moving as in the US train comes into the yard gets service fueled brake blocks changed without being detached from the train. They had show them the allocation sheets to show them what they was marked up to. Yard Pilots became a massive problem in the Heller era if he didn't see it move it was gone in his "Its obvious you don't need it" It got to the stage when he once went to Doncaster Up Decoy and Belmont the loco control arranged with the yard for the pilots just to move empty wagons about so they was left in place otherwise they would have been stored ASAP. 

To be fair the 350 Shunters by this point was in reality not fit for purpose, making up trunk Enterprise and Engineers trains with them was becoming a very laborious task with a brake test on say a 30 wagon train taking 30-45 mins from start to finish. So it was probably right they went in mass when they did despite some being fitted with class 37 air compressors to help speed up things.  

The Depot closures again in the US they have big centralized depots and that was Jim Fisk's big idea and he ran with it the idea to reduce the costs of the engineering function and a central spares pool. With light maintenance in the field the man in a van concept doing minor 'A' Exams and service checks to a certain extent this works but the Central Depot just gets flooded with work instead it going to other depots or being shared out. Penny wise but pound foolish. 

 

8K77 

 

[rob D2]

Interesting viewpoint from inside there.

I think burkhardt was popular with enthusiasts as trains appeared in places they hadn’t for years , and he had to reinstate a lot of old popular heaps to pull them,

 

If I was a shareholder or on the board, I’d probably have shuddered at all the trials and uneconomic short trains running around. I know there’s a case to run some to try  and get momentum on a route but seem seemed loss leaders all through.

[Ohmisterporter]

Was part of the problem with the American managers that they couldn't believe passenger trains had priority over  freight trains over here?

[8K77]

4 hours ago, rob D2 said:

Interesting viewpoint from inside there.

I think burkhardt was popular with enthusiasts as trains appeared in places they hadn’t for years , and he had to reinstate a lot of old popular heaps to pull them,

 

If I was a shareholder or on the board, I’d probably have shuddered at all the trials and uneconomic short trains running around. I know there’s a case to run some to try  and get momentum on a route but seem seemed loss leaders all through.

 

To be fair Ed had a vision he liked what Transrail had done with its Enterprise Network and it did grow and he saw an opportunity with the opening of the Tunnel to develop it more and fully integrate it. His idea get the volume on the trains this largely worked the aggressive marketing  and the no job is to difficult approach at 1st worked. He got the volume he brought traffic back the integration with the tunnel showed signs of working. When it came to the contracts with the customers being renewed and the customers having to pay decent rates for the transportation of the goods. Some customers would not pay the new rates and left rail again thus EWS absorbed the additional costs incurred. Thus turning marginal or break even traffic flows into loss makers, despite the account managers doing the best to win traffic. The difficult stuff  that under Burkhardt that was no job was too difficult to do came at cost and got put by the wayside. The Channel Tunnel dream the Asylum Seekers put pay to a lot of that and also the un predictable nature of cross Europe freight traffic where to the French, Germans, Italian's customer x's train is just another cross boarder train and your at the will of  the operators in those countries and late arrivals really didn't help along with Chemical traffic not being able to be moved through the Tunnel. 

 

8K77 

[black and decker boy]

On 13/02/2024 at 23:26, rob D2 said:

I’ve been rereading a ton of old Rail mags ,

apparantly the availability  of the 60 was about 85% and the 66 was 95% - you can guess what the EWS yanks preferred 

The 66s didn’t really directly replace the 60s though - they directly replaced the remaining class 20/31/33/37/47/56/58 fleets.

 

class 60s have suffered far more from the loss of the heavy-haul traffic flows of our diminishing heavy industry. DBC is a very different business now in scale and flows to that of 1994. Where any heavy flows passed to the new FOCs, 60s weren’t an option so the 66/6 was created.
 

There is still hope for the 60s, GBRF continue to operate then, Cappagh operate them and have more in store for possible return to service (60099 rumoured to be on the come back trail) and it’s reported that Land Recovery have bought many of the current tender for return to service.

 

 

Edited March 30 by black and decker boy
Typo