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

[Clay Country]

Many in the railfreight industry seem convinced that the downturn in freight volumes is only temporary, and the upward trend we saw before the recession will begin again in a couple of years. So it's quite possible the plan to overhaul a few 60s, as DBS suggested before the recession kicked in, could still happen.

 

Most of the growth over the next decade is expected to come from intermodal traffic, which is more suited to 66s than 60s (unless we get round to running longer, heavier trains). Perhaps with greater demand on the 66 fleet there might be a good case for spending some cash on a few 60s. I think DBS understands the economic situation will improve and they will probably need their tugs again at some point in the future...

[Guest Phil]

Very sad news that the 60s are to be stopped for good within the next week or so.

 

As previously mentioned, in the original design for the 60s, they should have had an overhaul every 8 years so. Therefore some if not all are due for their second visit to the works. Despite the comparison by some in the railway media and those shed lovers on the web it just goes to show how well these locos have done to keep going for nearly 20 years with the lack of servicing and maintenance that they have received. Would a Shed be in a better state with the same treatment?, I think we all know the answer to that looking at certain examples today after only 10 years.

 

A question for those on here that work on the railway and have the knowledge and experience to answer; the latest plan is to double head sheds on certain workings.

 

From what I hear for example the Lindsey to Westerleigh which is normally a 60 (on 28 TEAs) uses approximately the same fuel as a shed on a lighter load (same working). If you then double head it with a pair of sheds then the fuel consumption will be near enough double just to move a few more tanks. How can this be economically and environmentally better than using one loco? I appreciate the cost of maintaining these old locos compared to the newer sheds is higher but in the long run it surely can??™t be cost saving.

 

Fuel conaumption is an important factor in the economics of train operation, but only one factor. One of the biggest headaches the Ops at DBS must have is crew competency. TOCs and FOCs have varying regimes so it is not possible to generalise, but each driver and "guard" need to build and maintain competency for routes, tractions and skills. This might mean that every driver, at every depot you choose to operate a particular traction at, must PROVE they have used that skill within a fixed period of time. In some cases it is once a year, once every six months, five times in 24 weeks etc etc. It is incumbent on the assessor / manager / inspector to prove this as part of the operator's licence.

 

Obviously, for the last couple of months or so, active class 60s were up well into double figures which meant that DBS drivers got a form of annual refresher on the type. I noticed a couple of examples working down onto the former Southern Region which probably got the guys south of the Thames onto the class for the first time in ages. It is still a cost though - even if you regard the traction inspector type chappie as having to do extra check rides to sign off competencies.

 

 

People often compare the Lindsey to Kingsbury which often loads to 30 bogie tanks which a shed handles no problem compared to a 60. But from what I hear it is working on full power all the way there. That is not what a shed was designed for, pulling heavy freight trains day in day out. Therefore that is putting excess stress and strain on the engine which cannot be good for it, especially as that is not what the engine was designed to do. So in short they can cope on some of these heavier workings but for how long? As mentioned by other members they are already showing signs of wear and tear so this will only make it worse, especially as it has been less than a year since sheds took over the heavier workings!

 

I think one factor people need to think about is the uneven comparison between the class 60 and the class 66.

 

The class 60 was a purpose-built quality machine for dragging very heavy trains around Britains railways at a maximum of 60mph.

 

The class 66 is a mixed traffic loco designed as a 75mph general haulage replacement. I doubt Ed Burkhardt would ever publicly admit that these things were thrown together in haste, as a cheapo job lot to replace some of BR's more senior power. Nevertheless, their design is radically different as is the American approach to locomotive construction. The spot-welded class 66 bodyshells are inferior in build and material quality compared to the Brush machines. The power units are directly bolted to the frames which seem to enhance vibration. Don't forget that such noise and vibration in indigenous American locos is mitigated by a "floating cab", but also by virtue of the fact that American locos are generally 50% heavier - built in a much more sturdy, heavy duty fashion.

 

The biggest problem faced by UK freight hauliers now is paths between passenger trains. It's fine to say that a class 60 can shift a 3000 ton oil train from Immingham to Kingsbury, but at a maximum of 60mph. But this behemoth is not going to be cruising at 60mph for a great deal of the route because of braking and acceleration rates. It is going to be interesting to see whether the new GE whippersnapper can accelerate it's load as well as people as hoping, but don't forget - we are told the 70 is designed for whizzing 75 mph boxes along between passenger trains, not lugging heavy freight around at slower speeds.

 

Whether or not the class 66 is designed to run for long periods in notch 8 is debatable to the individual. DBS don't think so because they fitted the locos with a removable "stop" to save fuel, but this was fuel saving rather than running the engine "flat out"

 

Time will tell whether DBS balance the decision to store the fleet. Provided there is a ready source of "off the peg" (or should it be off the ship) EMD spares to keep the 66s in traffic then perhaps it makes sense economically to park the 60s. What does make sense though is that if and when any 60s are brought back into use, they receive some kind of overhaul rather than the CEM type mix and match, switch on and switch off lifestyle they have seen in the last few years.

[rob D2]

Sad to see,

Surely though if DBS lay up the last remaining 60s most will be beyond help by the time 'traffic picks up ', as mechanical things don't like being inactive for long periods.

[Lady_Ava_Hay]

I don't wanna see them sitting around rotting but then if they wanted to melt them all down and sell the metal, why not...........THEY OWN THEM.

 

Thanks,

 

Dave

 

It is not quite the same thing Dave. EWS and other operators hold a franchise and although they have sole use of any loco that they acquire, it may well have been paid for through quasi Government funding. This means that we paid for the locos by trading something for them rather than actually shelling out cash. In your personal car case it would be akin to you working at the dealership that supplied you at a less than market wage until the car was paid for or indeed supplying them with oven ready chickens at an agreed rate.

 

EWS buying new locos is a Good Thing but their franchise only generates revenue, not capital. The size and provenance of the franchise can thus allow them to borrow funds at a special rate and their revenue generates sufficient to pay standing charges and running charges. The residual value is of importance here and value to another operator is greater than scrap value. Standing a loco on a siding means that they are only paying minimal standing charges and, if they are lease expired, it costs more to run them as the standing charges are then increased and the running charges kick in.

 

Nobody wants them stood up idle but in a downturn it benefits the operator most.

 

Preservation is an entirely different matter and subject to considerably different criteria.

 

Although railways are 'privatised', not very much goes on without at least a nod of approval from HMG. If all these operators were completely exposed to commercial pressure, things would be different and probably much worse. This would not be in the public interest so we are a bit stuck with the system as it is.

[phil-b259]

It is not quite the same thing Dave. EWS and other operators hold a franchise and although they have sole use of any loco that they acquire, it may well have been paid for through quasi Government funding.

 

Freight opperators don't have franchises, they were bought outright upon privitisation along with all the assets, which includes the class 60s. Hence DBS can do what they like with regard to the 60s including scrapping the lot tomorrow if they so chose.

[Guest Phil]

It is not quite the same thing Dave. EWS and other operators hold a franchise and although they have sole use of any loco that they acquire, it may well have been paid for through quasi Government funding. This means that we paid for the locos by trading something for them rather than actually shelling out cash.

 

Sorry Dave.

The Freight companies (FOCs) are not franchises.

 

The way the BR freight companies were sold off was like this ;

 

Trainload Freight was divi'd into 3 under BR - TLF-W, TLF-SE, TLF-NE

Freightliner and Railfreight Distribution were split apart during the carve up and the Parcels sector became the sixth "freight" company.

 

TLF-W was branded Transrail, TLF-SE became Mainline and TLF-NE became Loadhaul.

 

To float the companies BR exrcutive asked the managers of the each of three "TLF" companies to submit a management buyout bid for it's own plus the other two.

 

As things weren't going too well John Major sent Brian Mawhinney over to Chicago to meet US entrepreneur Ed Burkhardt, who'd had success in buying up pieces of "unprofitable" railroad fro mthe biggies in the USA. MAwhinney was trying to convince Burkhardt to join in the bidding, but he made it clear to the British government that he was only interested in the lot and didn't believe the "TLFs" could compete with each other.

 

Burkhardt bid for the 3 TLFs and Parcels and got the lot for ??225 million IIRC.

 

Certainly Freightliner became an MBO in 1995 when it was rebranded Freightliner 95. RfD struggled on losing a million pounds a week so that Burkhardt's consortium named EW&S, bought RfD in about 1996 or 1997.

 

The freight companies we now see - DBS, Freightliner (HeavyHaul and Intermodal), DRS, GBRf and Colas are all privately owned, not franchises.

 

Hope this clarifies.

[Glorious NSE]

Dave - DB Schenker (and all the other freight operating companies) are companies in their own right, there are no freight franchises and the assets do not belong to the government.

 

"We" might have paid for the class 60's but EW&S bought them off "us" back in the mid 1990s.

[Glorious NSE]

I merely quoted what I read elsewhere. DRS did loose some dedicated 66 traffic already.

 

Yes, they lose the Tesco contract, i'd broadly call that 2 or 3 loco's worth a day though of the 20 class 66's they have, and in terms of Anglo-Scottish intermodals it's just 1 of the 5 workings each way through Carlisle.

 

Don't get me wrong, i'm sure it's a big blow to them, but it's not the end of the world.

 

It's also only a traffic loss in terms of DRS themselves, the traffic will still be on rail.

 

And it terms of "the overall picture for Railfreight" this seems to be widely regarded as a good thing, we've already had new traffic appearing internationally for Stobart that DRS would not have been able to handle.

 

Similarly as Fastline lost/cancelled its 56 work really.

 

They were hit hard by the big drop in intermodal traffic at the start of the recession and decided to just walk away - the drop in intermodal traffic has largely reversed itself since.

 

The overall picture is just not good, even if it "only" means less 66's to be bored by.

 

It's not all bad though. Unfortunately in terms of this thread the places where it's really not good are things like steel traffic, staple class 60 jobs.

 

Is that because as a state owned company they aren't as worried about "certain parts" of the balance sheet as the other FOC's ?

 

Rumours of a national strategic reserve based in Cumbria rather than in a tunnel in Wiltshire...?

 

Are DRS a private company? I thought they were part of BNFL...

 

DRS are a private company, albeit owned by the nuclear decomissioning authority according to their website. Does that make them owned by the government? Sorta Maybe I guess, muddied greatly by the owning organisation being a Qango so not really accountable to anyone...

[Banger Blue]

Are DRS a private company? I thought they were part of BNFL...

 

From the DRS Website

 

 

About Us

DRS was established in 1995 under British Nuclear Fuels Ltd to provide the nuclear industry with a strategic rail transport service. Since 2005, the company has become a wholly owned subsidiary of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) and continues to provide an ever expanding service portfolio in various market sectors.

 

The company has a tiered management structure overseen by the DRS Board. The day to day management of the business is carried out by the company??™s Managing Director and 6 Departmental Directors.

 

[Gary H]

 

 

People often compare the Lindsey to Kingsbury which often loads to 30 bogie tanks which a shed handles no problem compared to a 60. But from what I hear it is working on full power all the way there. That is not what a shed was designed for, pulling heavy freight trains day in day out. Therefore that is putting excess stress and strain on the engine which cannot be good for it, especially as that is not what the engine was designed to do. So in short they can cope on some of these heavier workings but for how long? As mentioned by other members they are already showing signs of wear and tear so this will only make it worse, especially as it has been less than a year since sheds took over the heavier workings!

It must not be forgoton that todays big companys are run by bean counters, not railwayman like they were in the good old days. Thats fact. They wont care a hoot about a loco type, 60, 66 or otherwise in the slightest or if it works in run 8 all day, as long as it gets there. Hell, most of the time they dont even care about their employees If these big companys can see a saving in the short term, they go for it. Dont let anyone try to tell you any differant! That 'big rail company' i work for is certainly no differant! Its all just a numbers game nowadays.

[Simon_R]

Sad news about the tugs, i have fond memories of them first appearing and being wowed by the size and power of these beasts. If your a skip fan (67's) get your photos now cos i heard a more than rumour that they may not be with us much longer either....

[Ron Ron Ron]

Dave's post has already been corrected by Phil, Phil and Martyn, but if I may add just a couple of comments....

 

....EWS and other operators hold a franchise and although they have sole use of any loco that they acquire, it may well have been paid for through quasi Government funding.

As the guys have already pointed out, the FOC's don't have, or operate under franchises. They are open access operators. AFAIK, once licenced to operate, they are free to bid for any contract going and are only restricted by the availability of suitable paths (OK I know there's a bit more to it, but it's effectively open competition).

 

As far as locos are concerned, where they don't own them outright (e.g. EWS/DBS's ex-BR fleet, DRS heritage locos etc.), then they lease them from ROSCO's, manufacturers or the banks. There's no public money involved.

 

In effect, Freight is the only truly privatised part of the railway.

 

 

If all these operators were completely exposed to commercial pressure, things would be different and probably much worse.....

They are completely exposed.... and as there's plenty of competition, it's unlikely that any of them would be saved by the public purse if they ran into trouble.

 

The passenger carrying side isn't immune from the market either (GNER, NXEC !). The only difference is that government has to step in to maintain a service and organise a replacement operator.

 

 

.....Rumours of a national strategic reserve based in Cumbria rather than in a tunnel in Wiltshire...?

 

I thought of that when I typed that post.

 

 

 

DRS are a private company, albeit owned by the nuclear decomissioning authority according to their website. Does that make them owned by the government? Sorta Maybe I guess, muddied greatly by the owning organisation being a Qango so not really accountable to anyone...

"Private company" ???

It is one of those "muddied" areas, but even though they are constituted like any privately owned business and operate accordingly, ultimately they are publicly owned.

There currently are and previously have been a number of similar examples in other areas of interest.

 

I have a sneaky suspicion that the different parts of DRS's operation are subject to different commercial disciplines (i.e. the Nuclear stuff), but I may be entirely wrong?

 

 

It must not be forgoton that todays big companys are run by bean counters, not railwayman like they were in the good old days. Thats fact. They wont care a hoot about a loco type, 60, 66 or otherwise in the slightest or if it works in run 8 all day, as long as it gets there.....

The commercial reality of life in the real world?

 

Enthusiasts may not like it, but locos are nothing but machinery; assets employed in the furtherance of a commercial enterprise. It only matters that they are effective in both cost and productiveness.

Does anyone get worked up if DBS retire any of their lorries or forklift trucks? (....runs for cover.... )

 

.

[Banger Blue]

 

......................They are completely exposed.... and as there's plenty of competition, it's unlikely that any of them would be saved by the public purse if they ran into trouble................

 

 

As has been proven recently with the demise of Advenza Freight.

[Jim Martin]

Can anybody kindly explain please......this is seen as relevant to the O.P, my apologies if others disagree..........

 

I've heard complaints from various industry individuals, some who run rival freight firms, about the fact that EWS/DBS wont sell their 60's.

 

In previous years there have been issues with the way EWS disposes of it's hardware such as Loco's that THEY OWN, and competitors have gone running off crying to the rail regulator to complain about this, the result being that EWS got slapped wrists and were told they HAD to make Loco's available for sale to competitors etc and were not allowed to just scrap them.

 

Well, how the hell does that work ?

 

I buy my car and I now own it.........it's up to me if I want to scrap it on the day of first registration if I so choose, it's MY car, so, as long as it's paid for, maintained and then disposed of in a non-hazardous manner, I can do what I like with it.

 

Well, the same with EWS/DBS. They OWN the Class 60, as they did with previous classes, why is it an issue what they do with vehicles that EWS/DBS actually OWN and then decide they don't need ?

 

I don't wanna see them sitting around rotting but then if they wanted to melt them all down and sell the metal, why not...........THEY OWN THEM.

 

Thanks,

 

Dave

 

Ed Burkhardt gave an interview to Rail Express back in 2007 and he made this exact point. This was after he'd left EWS, so he didn't

have an axe to grind (or if he did, he'd probably have been looking to stick it to EWS's then-management).

 

In the early post-privatisation period, I think that there was a reasonable argument to be made in favour of forcing EWS to put redundant

power up for sale. At that time the only UK source of off-the-shelf main-line locomotives was second hand sales of ex-BR power, EWS had sole

control of that supply and they could use it to exclude possible competitors. That isn't the case today and I'd have thought that anyone

who wanted to acquire a fleet of locomotives could do so relatively easily without going cap-in-hand to DBS.

 

In the same interview, he also said "EWS should replace the Class 60s as soon as it possibly can, unless it has plans to shrink its participation in the UK market even more". Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

 

Personally, I'm a lover of the 60s and consider myself lucky to be living in an area that was one of their last strongholds, but the practical arguments in favour of the Class 66 seem overwhelming to me.

 

Jim

[40044]

Burkhardt gave an interview in RAIL in about 1996 or 97 and was asked by Nigel Harris "so you don't see a long-term future for all those classes" (referring to 56s, 58s and 60s). Burkhardt's answer was a simple "no".

[D605Eagle]

Burkhardt gave an interview in RAIL in about 1996 or 97 and was asked by Nigel Harris "so you don't see a long-term future for all those classes" (referring to 56s, 58s and 60s). Burkhardt's answer was a simple "no".

Was it a case of an American wanting American products? or that he genuinely thought they were inferior? Having traveled the world quite alot in my time, I find that people from most countries tend to be more patriotic than we are.

[Jim Martin]

Was it a case of an American wanting American products? or that he genuinely thought they were inferior? Having traveled the world quite alot in my time, I find that people from most countries tend to be more patriotic than we are.

 

Burkhardt certainly didn't rate BR's motive power very highly. He seems to have practically despised the Class 47, for a start. It has to be said that the first GMs arrived because of Foster Yeoman's dissatisfaction with British locomotives. The 60s were presented as being the UK's answer to the 59s, but their introduction was marred by numerous faults whereas the 59s (and later the 66s) seem to have worked more-or-less straight off the boat

 

Jim

[John M Upton]

I also think there was a certain resentment from the Americans when they felt they had been sold a pup by by the Government. I recall an interview in one of the mags which retold the story that when Wisconsin Central bought the three TLF companies, their chief engineer came over to the UK to inspect the motive power and was apparently throughly unimpressed.

 

The official list supplied of locos that had been sold to them with the TLF companies listed locos that were 'Stored Serviceable' which they were told meant they could be reactivated for traffic in a matter of days or even hours yet it was recorded that he found one so called serviceable Class 31 was little more than a gutted body shell with no bogies whilst another had in fact been scrapped a year earlier!!

 

And that was apparently some of the better ones...

[Gary H]

Part of the problem for the 60 is that its a small class of locomotives built on a comparitivley tiny island in someones back yard compared with the loco building industry in the rest of the world. I suspect that the DBS bean counters see them as a huge liability, needing heavy overhaul, little or no spare part support and abit of an odd-ball in their shareholders eyes. All anyone wants these days is a huge (by numbers) generic locomotive with one generic set of parts, one generic set of servicing regimes. The 60 was great when we were just Great Britain with no one to be accountable for than ourselves, but look around now, we no longer produce anything except drunken thugs and are practicly run by the rest of Europe, hell, even the good old Spar shop is to be known as bloody Euro Spar :icon_frustrated: The demise of the 60 is just another closed chapter from a book we no longer own.

[APOLLO]

Part of the problem for the 60 is that its a small class of locomotives built on a comparitivley tiny island in someones back yard compared with the loco building industry in the rest of the world. I suspect that the DBS bean counters see them as a huge liability, needing heavy overhaul, little or no spare part support and abit of an odd-ball in their shareholders eyes. All anyone wants these days is a huge (by numbers) generic locomotive with one generic set of parts, one generic set of servicing regimes. The 60 was great when we were just Great Britain with no one to be accountable for than ourselves, but look around now, we no longer produce anything except drunken thugs and are practicly run by the rest of Europe, hell, even the good old Spar shop is to be known as bloody Euro Spar The demise of the 60 is just another closed chapter from a book we no longer own.

 

Too true. 10 years ago the WCML at the side of my house, trains used to be block on block overnight, Mondays for some reason especially. Nowadays very few trains pass midnight - 6 am. Also, during the day you can have 2 hours between freight trains.

 

Electric locos refurbed & sold / given to Bulgaria, Rumania - This country is indeed now a joke.

 

I remember Springs Branch having an allocation of brand new 60's, just before they closed Bickershaw colliery, (and shortly after, Springs Branch also - the reason why they where there). Class 60's Fantastic locos - with decent names too.

 

Brit15

[br2975]

".........I also think there was a certain resentment from the Americans when they felt they had been sold a pup by by the Government. I recall an interview in one of the mags which retold the story that when Wisconsin Central bought the three TLF companies, their chief engineer came over to the UK to inspect the motive power and was apparently throughly unimpressed......... "

.

If the Yanks weren't so insular, and a bit more worldy wise, they'd know the Latin phrase "caveat emptor"

.

Brian R

[LaGrange]

A large and expensive problem was high wheel wear rates brought about by the self steer mechanism not being entirely suited to the local permanent way, this was apparent in Ireland with the locomotives delivered there before the class 66s were built.

 

Thats true, several of the 1st batch of 201 class locos were laid up within months of delivery awaiting new wheelsets, which led to a severe loco haulage and questions asked by the government considering they had paid for the then new loco fleet

 

Anyway, has the curtain finally fallen on the Brush Type 5's??

[Steadfast]

Anyway, has the curtain finally fallen on the Brush Type 5's??

 

Well the supposed Saturday cut off hasn't happened, several are still out and about in the active WC** pools, and 60041 is allocated to tonight's Lindsey-Westerleigh and tomorrow's return...

I did hear from a very reliable source (ie, he'd been to Siemens earlier that week) that Siemens may be looking at buying some cheap from DB, and re-engine with a Cat lump and use them as hire locos, either UK or Europe. The shells are in good condition, with very little, if any, rust on the very worst examples. Siemens and DB have a very good working relationship apparently

 

cheers

 

jo

[Taigatrommel]

That doesn't sound like a pipe dream either- look at the number of ex-DR V100s rejuvenated by Alstom at Stendahl. Many are in service with DB in fact, having been sold by DB to Alstom, they were subsequently re-engineered and leased back! Siemens also have an existing relationship with MRCE for leasing, MRCE having bought Siemens Dispolok.

[Allegheny1600]

Hmmm.....

We could be in for some interesting times then (fingers crossed!).

What say, reliveried & re-engined class 60's working alongside British loading gauge Siemens or Vossloh diesels..................

Perchance to dream!

John E.

 

P.S.

Relating to class 59 vs class 60, don't forget that the first fleets of class 59's were very small indeed, given localised work (out & back), not 24/7 AND they were given very close monitoring by GM-EMD staff. "molly-coddled"? - Hardly, not with those sized stone trains BUT certainly very well looked after. If the class 60 had been given that kind of treatment, i'm sure they would be in fine form today.