Class 58 - what's the story?

[DavidLong]

There seems to be a good market for pre-loved diesel locomotives. Classes 20, 31, 37, 47, 56, 57 and now 60 (Wabtec have just bought 20) have all been bought and revived for use on the modern railway. The class that is conspicuous by its absence is Class 58 which, apart from its use in Europe, has seen no use since 2002. This seems strange for a relatively modern, 3300 hp heavy freight locomotive when companies such as GBRF are resorting to a Western and a Deltic to overcome a motive power shortage. Is there some inherent problem with Class 58 or is it just that Schenker don't want to sell them to possible competitors? Anyone any inside info on the possible reason(s)?

 

David

[Clay Country]

It's probably because most of the locos that DBS have offered for sale so far have been good for little more than scrap, being heavily robbed after years out of traffic and sat on scrap bogies/wheesets (if any bogies at all). Those locos it is clinging onto in France are in good condition (although these have been stored out in the open for quite a while now), and DBS presumably has further work lined up for them either in France or elsewhere in Europe. There's a lot of high-speed construction going on in France now, which might help to explain why they have remained there. By contrast, DBS decided to dispense with a large number of 56s which were in relatively good order, so despite the many challenges involved in maintaining 56s, these were snapped up. 58s are also fairly easy to maintain, which is a big advantage for operators of small fleets, so DBS might have been reluctant to let them go for this reason.

[Ron Ron Ron]

....This seems strange for a relatively modern, 3300 hp heavy freight locomotive ......

 

Being 30 years old may be relatively modern compared with the other 45-50 year old classic traction still earning a crust, but they're now pretty long in the tooth and with the non-exported examples having been left to rust, there's no point in trying to resurrect them just for its own sake.

I would have thought that any operator looking for heavy haul traction would likely be looking at new locos, or if they become available, any disposed of class 60's (those are now 20+ years old too).

 

 

.

[Classsix T]

Lack of spares will be an issue on a class which only numbered 50 locos, precluding the resurrection others have enjoyed.

For example, the C58LG had to buy two locomotives in order to make one operational.

 

C6T.

[jjb1970]

Something that is interesting and amusing is to take something that is in relative terms considered not that old like a Class 58 and then compare it with the other things that you used when they were delivered. At one time the basic arrangements of medium speed or big high speed engines went for many decades with minimal changes, 40 - 50 years could be expected as the production life of an engine (and I mean engine, not locomotive) but that is in freefall as the engine designers have to react to the markets need for ever better efficiency, ever lower emissions and the quest to try and have a zero maintenance engine.

[DavidLong]

Thanks for the responses so far. I think what puzzled me was that Class 56 was a hastily designed (not hastily produced though!) locomotive produced in response to the first oil price shock and thus a perceived need for a more suitable coal hauler than the Class 47. On the other hand Class 58 was a more considered response to requirements but in the present century seemed to be behind Class 56 in the minds of freight operators such as Colas.

Re-engineering seems to be an activity which we have only caught up on relatively recently in the U.K. but there has been an active market for rebuilt locomotives in the U.S. for many years. Over there I think that Class 58 would be seen as 'modern' being a mere 30 years old!

 

David

[Fat Controller]

It's probably because most of the locos that DBS have offered for sale so far have been good for little more than scrap, being heavily robbed after years out of traffic and sat on scrap bogies/wheesets (if any bogies at all). Those locos it is clinging onto in France are in good condition (although these have been stored out in the open for quite a while now), and DBS presumably has further work lined up for them either in France or elsewhere in Europe. There's a lot of high-speed construction going on in France now, which might help to explain why they have remained there. By contrast, DBS decided to dispense with a large number of 56s which were in relatively good order, so despite the many challenges involved in maintaining 56s, these were snapped up. 58s are also fairly easy to maintain, which is a big advantage for operators of small fleets, so DBS might have been reluctant to let them go for this reason.

Though there's still quite a bit of new construction of LGVs in France, changes in the way works trains are organised (most notably the use of 'virtual quarries', and shorter, but more frequent, ballast trains) mean that many fewer locomotives are needed. It's quite likely that the stored 58s won't see further use.

[Rods_of_Revolution]

Is at all likely that the underframes and bogies will be reused to support new internal equipment, much like the Class 47s and Class 73s? In theory it should be much cheaper to do such a thing with a Class 58 seeing as the superstructure isn't load-bearing; new modules could be built to the dimensions of the existing modules and bolted to the frame.

 

Cheers,

 

Jack

[The Stationmaster]

Is at all likely that the underframes and bogies will be reused to support new internal equipment, much like the Class 47s and Class 73s? In theory it should be much cheaper to do such a thing with a Class 58 seeing as the superstructure isn't load-bearing; new modules could be built to the dimensions of the existing modules and bolted to the frame.

 

Cheers,

 

Jack

 

Interestingly that was part of the design ethos of the Class 58s in that they were intentionally structured in the way they are to allow a lot of freedom in major component fit for the potential (never exploited) export market.

[HeatherKay]

There are some folk who plan to recreate an Ivatt diesel (that'd be LMS 10000 in other words). Part of their plan is to secure a Class 58 from scrap in order to use the frames as the basis of a new build of 10000. Apparently, it's quite hard to get anyone to give one up. 

 

You can find out more about the Ivatt Diesel Recreation Society and its aims on their web site.

 

http://www.lms10000.org/home

 

Just linking as an interested member who has always had a soft spot for the pioneer twins. I return you now to the main thread topic…

[newbryford]

Lack of spares will be an issue on a class which only numbered 50 locos, precluding the resurrection others have enjoyed.

 

 

That hasn't stopped six of a class totalling only 22 to be saved. (And that's at least 3 too many in my book, but that's a completely different topic)

 

Cheers,

Mick

[jjb1970]

Seems like an eternity when you consider the 58 was manufactured in the UK from British components (prime move, generator, motors, controls) and with hopes of being exported. Nowadays you could still buy the electrical stuff from British suppliers (just) but for the prime mover you'd have to go overseas and I'm not sure anybody would even contemplate designing a locomotive here now. Very sad.

[DavidLong]

Aside from the example that has been used as a 'christmas tree' for the preserved loco, have any other members of the class been scrapped?

 

David

[newbryford]

Aside from the example that has been used as a 'christmas tree' for the preserved loco, have any other members of the class been scrapped?

 

David

 

According to wnxx.com

58003/014/019/024/028/045

 

And I think there's a couple currently being cut up at Eastleigh.

 

Cheers,

Mick

[Clay Country]

According to wnxx.com

58003/014/019/024/028/045

 

And I think there's a couple currently being cut up at Eastleigh.

 

Cheers,

Mick

024 is still in existence, owned by Transfesa (another DB subsidiary) in Spain. 002/017/037 have been scrapped recently at Eastleigh.

[newbryford]

024 is still in existence, owned by Transfesa (another DB subsidiary) in Spain. 002/017/037 have been scrapped recently at Eastleigh.

 

Oops! Misread the list on wnxx.

Thanks for the amendment.

 

Cheers,

Mick

[Ron Ron Ron]

http://th06.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/f/2013/019/3/1/3100cf01b7334bae696c65c69ad5e04b-d5s141y.jpg

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/justinfoulger/7125320085/

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fgw143/8017400624/in/photostream/

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fgw143/8017384507/in/photostream/

[woodenhead]

A lick of paint, a bit of oiling, that's all they need!

[Classsix T]

That hasn't stopped six of a class totalling only 22 to be saved. (And that's at least 3 too many in my book, but that's a completely different topic)

 

Cheers,

Mick

Entirely different scenario Mick, if six Bones had been purchased whilst the lube oil was still warm and all the scrappers had twin sets of power units and cooler groups for spares, not to mention the completely different corporate age, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

C6T.

[John M Upton]

A lick of paint, a bit of oiling, that's all they need!

 

Reminds me of the time when Wisconsin Rail had bought the freight companies and their Chief Engineer came over from the US and was given a list of locomotives that were described by BR as Stored Serviceable only to find rusting hulks that were anything but!!

[6Y99]

The class 58s in a nut shell are a good loco they had been worked into the ground by BR, Trainload Freight, Mainline Freight and EWS. There 90% availability when EWS took over the UK freight operations spoke for its self. Having all the loco's based at one depot spoke for itself the fitters at Toton knew the loco's inside out. From the operations department point of view the loco's did have a few issues. One work colleague described them as the best loco a man can have on the flat! The 58s was quite light on there feet they had difficulty climbing the smallest of gradients. One night I recall an empty set of MGR hoppers coming from West Burton to Worksop slipped to a stand on the approach to Clabrough Jn in slightly damp conditions on a misty evening its trailing load was on 450ton. Also trying to get into Maltby Colliery could be interesting you didn't use the slow speed control and you didn't go over the weigh bridge at 1mph full power with half a bar of straight in to give her some traction to get into the loading point. It could also also be fun working loaded trains from the Doncaster Yards to Worksop via Maltby during the autumn and winter months on the climb St Caths to Maltby as the loco's would be slip slip sliding along. I wont mention what could happen on the Pinxton and lines to Woodhouse.

 

The loco's also when they developed a fault with any of the traction motors that lead to one of these being isolated meant that you lost your slow speed control this could be big issue when loading up at a colliery or discharging at a power station when you have maintain a constant 0.5mph. It could lead to coal being dropped between wagons coal coming out too quick at the power station the whole loading and unloading process is meant to be done on the move and dropping the auto brake on to try and keep to the requested speed would bring the whole train to a stand within seconds as in some places the straight air brake would be no good to regulate the speed, 

 

The EWS common user policy and moving the allocation from Toton to Old Oak then Eastleigh was crazy I know the loco's gained diagrams in the London and South East thanks to Mianline Freight but when loco's came up for exam Mainline Freight always manged to cycle the loco's to Toton on various C.E. Trips and trunk workings. It was just unfortunate that the class didn't fit in the common user idea!

[Fat Controller]

Reminds me of the time when Wisconsin Rail had bought the freight companies and their Chief Engineer came over from the US and was given a list of locomotives that were described by BR as Stored Serviceable only to find rusting hulks that were anything but!!

They continued this tradition after they took over, as some of my colleagues discovered upon opening cubicles on the 92s

[jjb1970]

Certainly I think it would have served EWS well to think about their locomotive fleet and do a bit more analysis before signing up for Class 66's in such large numbers. Most of the types they inherited were serviceable designs that with a bit of TLC could have served EWS well. Obviously at some point they needed replacement but I really feel that the way EWS handled their locomotive (and also wagon) investment decision was an ill considered rush that saddled the company with large numbers of assets with financing costs around their neck that weren't optimised for what they really needed.

[Chris56057]

Certainly I think it would have served EWS well to think about their locomotive fleet and do a bit more analysis before signing up for Class 66's in such large numbers. Most of the types they inherited were serviceable designs that with a bit of TLC could have served EWS well. Obviously at some point they needed replacement but I really feel that the way EWS handled their locomotive (and also wagon) investment decision was an ill considered rush that saddled the company with large numbers of assets with financing costs around their neck that weren't optimised for what they really needed.

I think your right here, you only have to look at the uptake of 56's from Colas recently to see how maybe EWS/DB have missed out longer term. I agree that they should of taken more time in their fleet analysis before signing up for such a large quantity of 66's. Perhaps the 58's could of had a future if this had occurred... 

[Revolution Ben]

Certainly I think it would have served EWS well to think about their locomotive fleet and do a bit more analysis before signing up for Class 66's in such large numbers. Most of the types they inherited were serviceable designs that with a bit of TLC could have served EWS well. Obviously at some point they needed replacement but I really feel that the way EWS handled their locomotive (and also wagon) investment decision was an ill considered rush that saddled the company with large numbers of assets with financing costs around their neck that weren't optimised for what they really needed.

Hi,

 

I can see the argument here around locomotives that could have soldiered on, but what was wrong with the new wagon builds? To an outsider, the investment in modern bogie coal hoppers, covered steel carriers, intermodal flats and tank wagons seems to have been an essential part of both growing rail freight and responding to market changes. Is that impression wrong?

 

Cheers

 

Ben A.