The Fall & Rise of the 60's ( was The End of the Tugs?)

[Glorious NSE]

If the 59's are like the 66's there is no real driving technique. If its a heavy train on a steep gradient it doesn't matter where you put the power controller the loco feeds as much power as the computor will let it to the traction motors. The big problem on a 66 is that with a good dry rail they will cope alright, but if the rail is wet or greasy then the loco starts to cut power to all the traction motors. The 60's coped a lot better because the traction power to the traction motors stayed high with the traction current only being reduced to the one/s that where slipping. From personal experience a 66 is not a patch on a 60 in terms of shifting a heavy load up a steep gradient on indifferent rail.

 

A 59 is not at all like a 66 tech-wise though, the super creep system on the 59s is similar in effect to that you describe on the 60 but AFAIK unlike the 60 allows the wheel to enter a controlled slip (they call it wheel creep) under about 12mph, counter-intuitively the best adhesion is apparently just beyond the point (105-115%) where the loco starts slipping and the 59's are designed to hold the wheels in that sweet spot in low speed/high load/low traction situations.

 

One thing that does need to be borne in mind with Class 59s is that they can be very slow when moving high tonnage on steeper gradients. So I again wonder if someone is trying to be clever and feeding in more power, in an attempt to get more speed out of the loco, because they don't understand the driving technique?

 

Or even reducing the power because the wheels start slipping?

[The Stationmaster]

A 59 is not at all like a 66 tech-wise though, the super creep system on the 59s is similar in effect to that you describe on the 60 but AFAIK unlike the 60 allows the wheel to enter a controlled slip (they call it wheel creep) under about 12mph, counter-intuitively the best adhesion is apparently just beyond the point (105-115%) where the loco starts slipping and the 59's are designed to hold the wheels in that sweet spot in low speed/high load/low traction situations.

 

Indeed so - the effect of riding on a 59 when the Super Creep cuts in is rather like the experience you would probably get from riding on an angle grinder You can literally feel the wheels rotating and trying to 'dig-in' as they 'don't quite slip' and feel the power going down to the rail to keep the train going - very impressive when lifting getting on for 5,000 tonnes up 1in138 on a curve B)

 

 

[

[/i]Or even reducing the power because the wheels start slipping?

Could indeed be the case

[Steadfast]

After months of General Motors haulage, Tuesday 13th April saw a class 60 return to the Robeston - Westerleigh Murco circuit. Having missed it on Tuesday, here is 60096 on Thursday 15th April climbing the gradient towards Yate on the Westerleigh branch, with the 6B47 empties to Robeston

cheers

 

jo

[Glorious NSE]

Nice Jo

 

 

[magic_monkey09]

I dont see how DBS can do without the class 60's, fair enough they have class 59's but they only have a maximim of 6 loco's and thats when the whole fleet is available which it sometimes wont be due to routine maintenence. Not only that the class suffers from wheelslip on the really heavy loads which class 60's seem to handle better.... ok DBS dont need 100 class 60's so scrap the majority of them but properly fix up at least 10 just to take the strain off the 59's.

 

The Scrap value of 90 class 60's would be enough to overhaul a mere 10 wouldn't it?

[Guest Phil]

If the 59's are like the 66's there is no real driving technique. If its a heavy train on a steep gradient it doesn't matter where you put the power controller the loco feeds as much power as the computor will let it to the traction motors. The big problem on a 66 is that with a good dry rail they will cope alright, but if the rail is wet or greasy then the loco starts to cut power to all the traction motors. The 60's coped a lot better because the traction power to the traction motors stayed high with the traction current only being reduced to the one/s that where slipping. From personal experience a 66 is not a patch on a 60 in terms of shifting a heavy load up a steep gradient on indifferent rail.

 

Paul J.

 

Thanks for that Paul.

[Glorious NSE]

I dont see how DBS can do without the class 60's, fair enough they have class 59's but they only have a maximim of 6 loco's and thats when the whole fleet is available which it sometimes wont be due to routine maintenence. Not only that the class suffers from wheelslip on the really heavy loads which class 60's seem to handle better.... ok DBS dont need 100 class 60's so scrap the majority of them but properly fix up at least 10 just to take the strain off the 59's.

 

Agreed - but the current boss has only been in place a month or two so we'll see how that pans out. The "gone by Christmas" claims towards the start of the thread certainly didn't happen as we're still here!

 

Some kind of heavyhaul presence in the fleet (beyond 6 loco's!) is needed anyhow, so it remains an issue that DBS's management have to deal with at some point - until then the patch and mend continues.

 

Not only that the class suffers from wheelslip on the really heavy loads

 

Except that it shouldn't suffer - controlled wheelslip is part of the design as we've said above.

 

Why can they handle a 4000t stone trains from Somerset to London on a daily basis irrespective of conditions but slip to a stand with a 2300t coal train?

 

That makes no sense unless either:

( a ) they aren't working as they should

( b ) they aren't driven as they are designed to be driven - or

( c ) there is some other unknown factor at play

[Swindon 123]

Both 60's and 66's employ controlled slipping as do the 59's to shift heavy loads. It is usually noticed as a sharp and painfull squealing coming from the wheelsets as they are slipping on the rail. The driver has no control of this action as it is entirely under the control of the loco's computer. The advantage that a 60, and possibly a 59 but I haven't driven enough of them to get a true idea, is that if one wheelsets starts to slip in an uncontrolled manner, on a bit of wet rail for instance, then the computer still provides full power to the wheelsets under its control and cuts down the power to the uncontrolled wheelset untill it stops the uncontrolled slipping. However on a 66 the computer when faced with an uncontrolled wheelslip on one of the wheelset has a tendency to cut down on the traction power to all the wheelsets. This is very noticable to a driver as the engine revs die down and if he has the EM2000 in power mode he also notices the traction power rapidly reducing. This is not very helpful and the driver has to hope the loco either starts sanding, which it sometimes is reluctant to do, or the wheels find a nice dry bit of track. By the way before you ask on a 66 the driver cannot sand of his own desire that is controlled by the loco. If the train eventually slips to a stand another problem manifests itself. On most gradients the straight air brake on a 60 is capable of holding the train on its own, so starting away from a stand usually means only having to release the straight air brake when you think there is enough power to get the train going. (Plus the fact you have control of the sands). The straight air brake on a 66 will not hold a heavy train on even a moderate gradient so on a steep gradient the train brake has to applied, sometimes as much as 4bar. Untill you are sure the loco will start the train you dare not release the train brake, so you sometimes end up with the situation of a loco on full throttle not going anywhere whilst the driver waits for the train brake to release, which may take some time. This maybe why sometimes to someone watching from the sidelines driving technique looks to have gone out of the window.

 

Paul J.

 

 

[magic_monkey09]

The management at DBS need to sort the issue out and not keep putting it to one side and having a "this will do for now" attitude. fair enough they think they have sorted the problem by using class 59's instead but they can only really class it as a reliable Train load when a class 66 is in the consist as insurance otherwise a 59 on its own is a liability on the network. The same applies really to a class 60, their engine hours are so high and have only recieved patch -work maintenance that they are also vunerable to breaking down and causing chaos on the network. Double shedding seems to be more reliable strictly speaking but is not a long term solution for DBS as it will cost them more money in fuel costs, produce higher levels of emmissions and reduce fleet availability not to mention the possibility of damaging the EMD 66's as they weren't designed specifically for Heavy Haulage like the 60's and 59's were....

 

DBS have tried and tested 59's without the degree of success they would have liked whilst also keeping an eye on freightliner's new class 70's which right now are'nt proving as usefull as they should be, suffering from alot of teething problems and recieving a bad press. Realisticly they have to keep a small fleet of 60's active enough to be summoned when needed and from the looks of it the patch-work maintenance will continue throughout 2010 until a decent traction policy can be drawn up by the management team. Whether that be new locomotives or a Refurbishment programme for existing ones...

[magic_monkey09]

Except that it shouldn't suffer - controlled wheelslip is part of the design as we've said above.

 

Why can they handle a 4000t stone trains from Somerset to London on a daily basis irrespective of conditions but slip to a stand with a 2300t coal train?

 

That makes no sense unless either:

( a ) they aren't working as they should

( b ) they aren't driven as they are designed to be driven - or

( c ) there is some other unknown factor at play

 

perhaps gradient comes into the question somewhere. I dont know the exact steepness of the lines between Somerset and london but I should imagine especially around London that they are pretty flat.

 

As for the coal trains they are lighter than stone trains as you say but bad weather on possibly harsh gradients gives them bit of a trouble.

[Glorious NSE]

perhaps gradient comes into the question soomwhere. I dont know the exact steepness of the lines between Somerset and london but I should imagine especially around London that they are pretty flat.

 

As for the coal trains they are lighter than stone trains as you say but bad weather on possibly harsh gradients gives them bit of a trouble.

 

Well, admittedly Reading to London down the Thames Valley isn't far off being flat (Brunel's engineering at work) - but Eastern Somerset definately isn't, and contrary to what the Great Western's advertising says the South West also has bad weather on occasion.

[The Stationmaster]

perhaps gradient comes into the question soomwhere. I dont know the exact steepness of the lines between Somerset and london but I should imagine especially around London that they are pretty flat.

 

As for the coal trains they are lighter than stone trains as you say but bad weather on possibly harsh gradients gives them bit of a trouble.

 

 

Gradient does indeed come into the question, as does curvature because it too will increase rolling resistance.

 

As far as the Somerset stone trains are concerned both Merehead and Whatley have the haulage capacity to load out trains up to c.5,000 tonnes trailing load. I think the heaviest booked train out of Whatley then was about 4,800 tonnes but it was tested with 5,000 plus a dead loco (in case of problems) with no trouble and the Super Creep only came in as described in my post above.

 

Merehead was at one time regularly loading one train up to 5,000 tonnes and not infrequently a bit over. The steepest gradient the train would encounter enroute to Acton was 1in70 just east of Woodlands but the road there is undulating so not all the train would be on the rising grade (it's also the area where the 12,000 tonne test train broke and that was mainly a consequence of the undulating road and cr*p British supplied material on the loco).

 

But the real test is the climb up to Savernake out of the dip just west of Pewsey - basically 6 miles of rising gradient with shallowest bit being a very short piece of 1in669 and the steepest 1in106 (at just about the summit; I would think the ruling gradient is in the region of 1in200-220). And it's not much better over the 16 miles from Westbury to Woodborough with only 6 miles of that being level and the rest rising, including 6 miles at mainly 1in220 And 59s have run up that lot with 5,500 tonnes trailing with no problems - on any sort of rail condition - and in fact with loads like that it is far more likely that a coupling would break before the loco is overpowered.

 

The 'big' Merehead - Acton train was worked by a pair of Class 37s before the 59s arrived but the load was considerably smaller (somewhere I have a copy of the paper I presented at an Institution of Mechanical Engineers symposium on heavy haul freight and I think the figure is in there but alas I can't find it and there doesn't appear to be a copy on the 'net either).

[magic_monkey09]

If the class 59's are 'on paper' superior locomotives then why have so little been produced? just goes to show that they are over-rated and cant do the job at hand when faced with it and the same goes for the FL 70's at the moment.

 

class 60's when first introduced didn't have the best entry into service we can admit but they later made up for that and lived up to what they were designed for and that is HEAVY HAULAGE, the only reason they have tripped at the last hurdle is due to lack of thourough maintenance. Class 59's have been around for nearly as long and have so far only proved successful on aggregate trains and not coal and oil which they are now needed on.. As far as i'm aware class 60's perform well on all these trains.

[Guest Phil]

If the class 59's are 'on paper' superior locomotives then why have so little been produced? just goes to show that they are over-rated and cant do the job at hand when faced with it and the same goes for the FL 70's at the moment.

 

Just a minute Magic Monkey.

All the class 59s were custom and purpose built for private operators in the UK - operators who were brassed off with the quality of service offered by British Rail. The design was basically a lightweight, UK configured SD50 (or SD40-2 according to some), and was ordered in handfuls by Foster Yeoman, ARC and National Power.

 

When EWS chose to have a US designed loco as their core fleet replacement it was obviously easier to go to EMD and use the previous generation class 59 platform, but fit it out with SD70 bits as the indigenous design had moved on from the SD50.

 

Perhaps EWS might have been better off buying 59/3s, but new engine, electronics etc etc, along with self steering bogies made the class 66 a new whizzy modern design. The fact remains though that 59s are shifting 4000t trains up from Somserset several times a day. I imagine they would easily handle the supertrains of oil with comparative ease but are not as comfortable as the Brush built products. i certainly wouldn't describe 59s as over rated.

 

Class 70s are suffering childlike growth pains, and I am having reservations about the Jenbacher power units.

 

 

class 60's when first introduced didn't have the best entry into service we can admit but they later made up for that and lived up to what they were designed for and that is HEAVY HAULAGE, the only reason they have tripped at the last hurdle is due to lack of thorough maintenance. Class 59's have been around for nearly as long and have so far only proved successful on aggregate trains and not coal and oil which they are now needed on.. As far as i'm aware class 60's perform well on all these trains.

[S.A.C Martin]

I dont see how DBS can do without the class 60's, fair enough they have class 59's but they only have a maximim of 6 loco's and thats when the whole fleet is available which it sometimes wont be due to routine maintenence. Not only that the class suffers from wheelslip on the really heavy loads which class 60's seem to handle better.... ok DBS dont need 100 class 60's so scrap the majority of them but properly fix up at least 10 just to take the strain off the 59's.

 

The Scrap value of 90 class 60's would be enough to overhaul a mere 10 wouldn't it?

 

Not to chuck rose tinted specs on at every given opportunity, but could a few preservationists have a quick mosey around to save a few worthy examples before we condemn 90 out of 100 relatively work out, but useful locomotives? Personally I'd like dibs on 60066...

 

What's struck me about this thread on the class 60s is that no one has had a single bad thing to say about this class other than that they've been badly abused for the last decade and probably more. Where other classes had TLC, this class didn't and for the most part they still keep going. Why if they are so useful (despite, granted, engine failures) have they not been looked after for long term use? I don't ask, to imply there's a conspiracy or similar, just genuinely interested why this class which no one really says a bad thing about haven't been much loved supposedly by their operating companies.

[Rugd1022]

Simply put - nobody likes spending money on maintenance unfortunately.

 

Has anyone actually started a fledgling pres group for 60s yet, I'm not aware of any?

 

Nidge (I miss being on them!)

[S.A.C Martin]

Simply put - nobody likes spending money on maintenance unfortunately.

 

Has anyone actually started a fledgling pres group for 60s yet, I'm not aware of any?

 

Nidge (I miss being on them!)

 

I think there's a link on the first page of this thread to a class 60 preservation group, Nidge.

[John M Upton]

I think there's a link on the first page of this thread to a class 60 preservation group, Nidge.

 

Indeed:

http://www.c60pg.co.uk/

 

I wish them luck finding a preserved railway that has the room and the axle loading limit to actually take one mind, maybe even two.

 

How about the Bluebell??? After all they have worked on the Ardingly branch....

That should get me hit over the head by someone when I return to work tomorrow....

[S.A.C Martin]

Indeed:

http://www.c60pg.co.uk/

 

I wish them luck finding a preserved railway that has the room and the axle loading limit to actually take one mind, maybe even two.

 

How about the Bluebell??? After all they have worked on the Ardingly branch....

That should get me hit over the head by someone when I return to work tomorrow....

 

:lol:

 

Perhaps if I win the lottery the GCR wouldn't mind hosting my own class 60...?

 

I'd love to get the money to pay off the steam and diesel depots they've planned for the railway, would give them such a boost in terms of visitors.

[magic_monkey09]

if a class 60 could be brought for preservation they wouldn't need to update their whole section of track to accomodate it really, just maybe a small area around the yard and shed they keep it in perhaps but dont the 60's come pre-fitted with modern safetly equipment OTMR and the likes of no doubt so strictly speaking could quite easily be re-registered for mainline use for things such as railtours and would spend the majority of its time on the mainline rather than on a private railway also im sure Barrow Hill could find a nice little spot to keep it when its not in use . The only thing is that would it generate enough enthuasiasts to pay for things such as track access charges etc? seeing as 60's are still quite modern they are also partly to blame along with the 66's for the decline of older BR locomotives such as 37's and 56's so there will be alot of bitter enthusiasts aswell as diesel bashers

[newbryford]

 

 

Perhaps EWS might have been better off buying 59/3s, but new engine, electronics etc etc, along with self steering bogies made the class 66 a new whizzy modern design. The fact remains though that 59s are shifting 4000t trains up from Somserset several times a day. I imagine they would easily handle the supertrains of oil with comparative ease but are not as comfortable as the Brush built products. i certainly wouldn't describe 59s as over rated.

 

 

"Normal" 66's are a "go-anywhere for weeks without needing maintenance" design. EWS sacrificed lighter-rated electrical systems for higher fuel capacity and 75mph capability. Early on in the 66 life, the eminent Roger Ford suggested modified 66's with lower gearing and hence higher tractive effort and not long after the 66/6 appeared. I can certainly see the difference between 66/5 and 66/6 on 20xloaded HXA's coal trains outside my back door on a 1 in 86.

 

W.r.t. to fuel, Freighliner intermodal don't like the low-emission 66 as the range is lower than a normal 66. DRS suffered problems with lack of fuel on LE 66's on some of the Mossend-Daventry long-haul runs as other on here have mentioned.

 

Why are 59's struggling on the Liverpool Bulk Terminal trains? - sharp curves and steep gradients together. As I've always said, a 60 is superior to a 59.

 

Cheers,

Mick

[magic_monkey09]

maybe its just me thinking like this but i think DBS seem too keen to snap up contracts and freight flows from other operators yet dont seem to be taking into account that this will affect their fleet availability. They should treat it like they do with the sandite season whereby we saw the class 60 fleet boosted to 24 examples to cover for the 66's on Sandite. They should use 66's on every train that doesn't exceed the limit a 66 is capable of but certain trains such as the westerleigh oil tanks are best left to 60's as they can handle the load alone without the need for double heading. If they were given an overhaul or even semi-thourough maintenance failures would be reduced dramatically and release 66's and 59's back onto their usual workings.

 

i can see the 66's eventually ending up like the 60's being overworked because they couldn't afford to take them out of traffic to maintain them because the fleet is so stretched...(doubt the leasing company would like this but aslong as they are being payed they wouldn't notice)

 

60's need the attention now more than ever not only for the good of the company and the locomotives but also for the safety of their drivers, they have already been given instructions not to enter the engine room whilst the engine is on...what does that tell you....

 

DBS only have 6 class 59's so lets not knacker them by pushing them to the limit either...

[Steadfast]

Today's working - first tug on the Theale Murco since 8th Dec last year

Having been held in Swindon for a while, 60074 'Teenage Spirit' passes Callow Hill with 6B33 Theale - Robeston empty Murco tanks. Unbelievebly the blue sky held for the 60 and sight matched the sound, couldn't really have asked for more

cheers

 

jo

[Grimleygrid]

Nice shot of 74 Jo, that looks like a good location. Good to see 60s back on the Murcos.

 

Margam have two down there now. After the past few months I bet they didn't think that would ever happen again!

[Steadfast]

Thanks Alex, btw is that your shot on 60gen at the mo?

I'm not sure what's happened with 60096, it was booked to work 6M75 out of Wales - whether it worked a return, or whether it was to get it back for maintenance I'm not sure. Apparently last week it was banging due to a loose piece in the exhaust. Tug 74 is on the Westerleigh run today, I was really surprised to see it on the shorter Theale run yesterday. Only 24 tanks, vs Westlerleigh's 28, which produced a pair of sheds.

If 096 is still on Margam, technically that makes 4, given 026 and 062 are stored there. Well, positive thinking and all that

cheers

 

jo