Jump to content
 

Next batch of Class 70's


Recommended Posts

Does anyone know why they have been given '70' as a class number, when '7X' has been used for electric classes in the past? What was wrong with the vacant '5X' or '6X' class numbers? (especially as class 70 was used before for the Bulleid Co-Co electric locomotives).

 

It's because the 'vacant' 5X and 6X series aren't vacant, they are used by DMU and EMU cars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just out of interest..........

 

135 tons of sparkling, brand new locomotive, BUT.......

 

How the hell does it get an RA of only 7 ?

 

Look at the Class 67, very heavily route restricted even now, but the new Class 70 - won't ever be allowed out will it ?

 

My basis for the question is the attitude of various 'know nothings' in the media and our very own Network Rail, blaming Gauge Corner Cracking and the like on 'heavy new trains'...............well, this is one 'heavy new' piece of kit isn't it ?

 

Something doesnt add up here.........

 

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right.... those requests are now done for the reliveries of the class 70....

Original Freightliner livery

post-2850-1258030612936_thumb.jpg

The photo used, is copyright to Gareth Bayer ?© who has kindly given me permission to post this image

Two tonne Grey livery

post-2850-12580306627136_thumb.jpg

The photo used, is copyright to Gareth Bayer ?© who has kindly given me permission to post this image

 

Enjoy!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Just out of interest..........

 

135 tons of sparkling, brand new locomotive, BUT.......

 

How the hell does it get an RA of only 7 ?

 

Look at the Class 67, very heavily route restricted even now, but the new Class 70 - won't ever be allowed out will it ?

 

My basis for the question is the attitude of various 'know nothings' in the media and our very own Network Rail, blaming Gauge Corner Cracking and the like on 'heavy new trains'...............well, this is one 'heavy new' piece of kit isn't it ?

 

Something doesnt add up here.........

 

Dave

 

Not so much a matter of adding-up, more a question of division.

 

I'm not sure where you got 135 tonnes from because the Freightliner spec sheet shows the weight as 129 tonnes and assuming even loading a Class 70 resting on 6 axles gives an axle loading (which is one part of the critical data for deciding RA) of 21.5 tonnes.

 

So straight away that is less than the 22tonnes (I am assuming it is tonnes and not tons) axle loading of a Class 67. Add to that the longer length of the Class 70 plus again taking into account the 3 axle bogies and the Bridge Loading curve will be significantly different from that of the shorter 4 axle Class 67 - all significant factors in calculating the RA.

 

Finally there is one other very significant factor - the Class 67 has a maximum permitted speed of 125 mph; the max permitted speed of the Class 70 is 75mph - and speed is again a factor in calculating RA.

 

But forget all the complicated bits, the simple fact is that the Class 70 has 3 axle bogies and a lower axle loading and that it is enough lower to give a good Route Availability.

 

If you want to compare the 125 mph Class 67 with anything then use an HST power car - which weighs just over 70 tonnes hence a much lower axle load notwithstanding a high speed capability.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a reason EWs / Db have not odered any of these?

Apart from they dont need them!

 

I think "they don't need them" pretty much covers it. Also, if DB did need new locos, they would probably look first to their European suppliers, ie Bombardier and Siemens, rather than GE.

 

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I've got to say, embarrassingly, it's growing on me! blink.gif laugh.gif Though it does look like a hamster stuffing it's cheeks when it's sat next to the shed

Looking at the photos, it does seem to explain why the horn grill looks like it's on upside down - otherwise the wipers wouldn't meet in the middle. I wonder if the lamp irons are retractable, or whether they were added at Newport, as that's the first time they appeared in photos.

Has anyone worked out why there are yellow circles on the buffers? Not a "grease here" point for the American builders is itwink.gif, given they don't usually have to deal with buffers?

 

cheers

 

jo

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Well, I've got to say, embarrassingly, it's growing on me! blink.gif laugh.gif Though it does look like a hamster stuffing it's cheeks when it's sat next to the shed

Looking at the photos, it does seem to explain why the horn grill looks like it's on upside down - otherwise the wipers wouldn't meet in the middle. I wonder if the lamp irons are retractable, or whether they were added at Newport, as that's the first time they appeared in photos.

Has anyone worked out why there are yellow circles on the buffers? Not a "grease here" point for the American builders is itwink.gif, given they don't usually have to deal with buffers?

 

cheers

jo

 

The lamp irons are definitely present in some US pics - certainly in one of 4 locos (only 70006 can be clearly distinguished) enroute to the port taken of them passing Altoona loaded on flat cars :blink:

 

In the same pic the yellow spots on the buffers are a bit grubby so I wonder if the yellow was there a some sort of hazard marking for otherwise unknowing (of such detail) folk in a US factory?

 

PS I think they definitely look the business next to a Class 66 (apart from the nose end) but then I have never had a high opinion of the (non)aesthetics of the 66s ever since I first saw one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so much a matter of adding-up, more a question of division.

 

I'm not sure where you got 135 tonnes from because the Freightliner spec sheet shows the weight as 129 tonnes and assuming even loading a Class 70 resting on 6 axles gives an axle loading (which is one part of the critical data for deciding RA) of 21.5 tonnes.

 

So straight away that is less than the 22tonnes (I am assuming it is tonnes and not tons) axle loading of a Class 67. Add to that the longer length of the Class 70 plus again taking into account the 3 axle bogies and the Bridge Loading curve will be significantly different from that of the shorter 4 axle Class 67 - all significant factors in calculating the RA.

 

Finally there is one other very significant factor - the Class 67 has a maximum permitted speed of 125 mph; the max permitted speed of the Class 70 is 75mph - and speed is again a factor in calculating RA.

 

But forget all the complicated bits, the simple fact is that the Class 70 has 3 axle bogies and a lower axle loading and that it is enough lower to give a good Route Availability.

 

If you want to compare the 125 mph Class 67 with anything then use an HST power car - which weighs just over 70 tonnes hence a much lower axle load notwithstanding a high speed capability.

 

Hi Mike,

 

Many Thanks for the 'educational' reply, which was very helpful as ever.

 

Just like to point out that I got 135 tons from the GE Builders plate on the Loco, which states 135 METRIC TONNES........however as you say, the TOPS data panel clearly says 129 TONNES, so straight away, a difference.

 

Also, the co-co bogie is an obvious difference between the 67 and 70, so of course, more weight distribution, enabling the RA of 7.

 

I knew that the 'official' figures/design couldnt be wrong, but the 135 tonnes did get me wondering.

 

Thanks again,

 

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do these things have provision for a knuckle coupler? If all they have is the screw-link then that might be the reason that they were moved by flatcar rather than a dead tow in the US. It looks like the handrails are only to provide a 'porch' to stand on while opening the cab door, no walking the length of the loco while in motion (that would probably give HSE fits). A shot I saw of one at the factory had a temporary walkway the length of the hood, with high-tech handrails (looked like 1"x3" lumber), but it would likely have been out of gauge for UK operations.

 

Adrian

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The lads at Bristol Parkway have been playing with their new toy (suspect a tad of showing off to the audience as well!!):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXrqH2nkd1U

 

She may have looks on its mother could love but I am liking how they sound. Any RTR model will need to have a stonking sound chip as standard!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought:

 

If the locos have AC traction motors and haven't been tested on UK metals under power (mainline running not in yards) shouldn't they undergo testing to check if the electrics don't mess with track circuits and signalling systems first- (as the 92's did)?

 

Who the hell really cares what colour they are, or whether they are ugly or the lights are funny shapes? As long as they are hard working, have a good non failure record and are good for the crews working them should we really worry? (and hopefully they are better build quality and don't feature such interseting delights that a 66 has of when in no.2 end with both fans in hot air is blown forwards into the cab!!)

 

Too much hot air and frothage!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The lads at Bristol Parkway have been playing with their new toy (suspect a tad of showing off to the audience as well!!):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXrqH2nkd1U

 

She may have looks on its mother could love but I am liking how they sound. Any RTR model will need to have a stonking sound chip as standard!

 

Nice to hear a big decent 4 stroke engine again ! (though I do like the EMD 2 stroke as well), if it runs like any big US GE plant then it'll chug like crazy under heavy load, much like the 56s and 60s do, sounds great, mixed feelings on the looks, cant wait till one gets to Ipswich next week, may even be lucky enough to pick one up at Felixstowe when at work next week ( fingers crossed ).

 

Best

 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...