Class 66 anyone?

Why on Earth would anyone do that?! Surely the other way around?

 

As there are still not far short of 500 of the buggers knocking about I suspect your 'few years time' will be a fair few years time. In light of the, at best, stagnation in railfreight in the UK I cannot see any great investment to replace them with something new in the medium term, plus I wonder whether exports will begin as they fall out of service over here.

 

And a number of class 66 and the later class 77 are in service in many european contries as well, so they will be with us for a long time. The remarquable robustness of GM engines in general make them very often attractive for exports as you say. It wouldn`t surprise me if we still would see some of these locomotives in service for at least 40 years time to come (in case of no diesel banned restrictions)

Knut

 

I’ve tagged this on to this thread since it’s a class 66 thread. Not my photo but it gets my vote. A class 66 in railblue.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/linesidephotos/39644138385/in/photostream/

 

Maybe I'm being unduly cynical, but having seen so many posts on YouTube where diesel enthusiasts rave over "Loads of lovely CLAG!!", I wonder whether it's also due to how clean running they are (at least, if that one is anything to go by!) Once she'd fired up on all cylinders, even when revved up the exhaust was remarkably clean.

 

I couldn't agree more - the 59s really were a ground-breaking class. I can still remember reading how Foster Yeoman were convinced that they'd need six to give them the availability they required, only to be informed by GM that four would be enough - and the 59s proved them right! Whatever their failings (I think in terms of the ergonomics of the cab?), they were a huge leap forward in reliability and ease of servicing as compared to the Class 56s with which Foster Yeoman had lost patience.

I can also remember reading about the bewilderment of BR engineers when, having agreed that Foster Yeoman could provide their own locos, they received the specification; the BR team were expecting something like a thick A4-sized book - and received one sheet of A4 paper, which simply listed the requirements for availability, hauling ability, and down-time for servicing - and insisted on proof that such a design was already meeting those targets, somewhere in the world! Foster Yeoman were well aware that there was no BR class at the time which could meet that spec, so when they suggested that they should buy them from GM instead, the BR team really had no option but to agree.

It was a big gamble on the part of GM, as the work required to shoehorn their power unit and running gear into our loading gauge was extensive, and must have cost them an arm and a leg. I'd be surprised if they did any more than break even on the first order (if that) - but, when you look at the way the 59s opened up the British and European markets for them, didn't that gamble pay off? It's worth remembering that, in relation to the size of Britain as compared to the US, our track mileage and intensity of working makes us a prime market for US railway equipment manufacturers, and one big enough that they can't afford to ignore.

I was struck to read the way that GM locked on to the main gripe that Foster Yeoman had with BR - the unreliability of the locos that they'd previously had to depend on. GM made it clear to FY that the engines used in the 59s were not state of the art by any means; in fact, by their standards, they were quite old technology. But the key point was that it was a basically sound and reliable design which had long since had the bugs worked out of it - and that proven reliability was what clinched the deal. Compare that with the crazy way that BR ordered fleets of completely unproven designs, from manufacturers with no experience of railway locos, straight off the drawing board, in the 1950s - and how many of those classes proved to be complete lemons, and a colossal waste of money.

Disclaimer: what I've written above has been done from memory of reading a number of articles about the 59s from the time they were first ordered until they went into service - and, after all this time, my memory could be flaky on the details. If so, please feel free to correct any errors that I've made!

 

I understand that BR were thinking GM but could not get the Government to agree to them buying abroad

 

I dunno - I think the most soulless locos I've ever seen are Class 47s in BR blue.

 

Typical!! Politicians interfering in a business about which they know little (and care less) and making a right royal mess up!

If I remember correctly, it was politicians who were the main proponents of closing down BR works and pushing loco building out to firms in private industry with no background in railway work at all - such as, for example, the prime mover used in the Class 28. Crossley's based this on an engine supplied to the Admiralty for use in fast patrol boats, where they gained a first rate reputation for reliability. Unfortunately, Crossley's didn't have the experience to realise that the working conditions of an engine used in a diesel loco were radically different from those of a patrol boat - and the engine proved to be constantly troublesome in those very different surroundings.

"To err is human - but if you want a real fustercluck, get a committee of politicians in!"

 

In the initial Modernisation Plan the intent was to encourage UK industry whilst minimising imports through purchases from abroad hence the Government banning foreign involvement unless it was through a UK company (e.g. German Maybach engines built under licence by UK Bristol-Siddeley; Swiss Sulzer engines built under licence by UK Vickers Marine) and the USA companies refused to licence their products.

After the arrival of the Class 59s, and the confirmation of their performance levels, BR wanted to order more as replacement for ageing locomotive fleets but feared Union opposition hence issued an Invitation to Tender that specified Class 59 levels of performance and reliability; this led to the order for the Class 60 design that proved better in some performance respects but poorer in others.

 

Wasn't there something also to do with the RAF ordering AWACS from Boeing at the same time?

 

Naw, I like 47s in blue. On untried locos ordered in bulk during the modernisation plan, the experience of NBL was a good illustration

 

But wasn't that linked to the US Air Force taking up residence on UK air bases hence being a self-contained business deal ?

 

Not quite methinks. The NBL experience with Classes 21 / 22 was tainted by 2 factors (a) the locos were based on 10000/1 and built accordingly (e.g. to steam locomotive standards) hence their weight problems and (b) the fabrication of the MAN engines was subject to faulty measurement conversions from metric. On their day both locomotives worked well and were well liked by drivers but their reliability offset any goodwill they engendered. In respect of the "Warships" D600 was also based on 10000 / 1 in their construction whilst the Class 43 suffered the engine reliability problems from the poor fabrication of the MAN engines.

In fairness to NBL however it should be noted that Bristol Siddeley altered the specification of the Maybach engine without checking with Maybach hence the early problems with the Class 42 fleet in the early days but more particularly with the Hymeks; the latter proved superior to the Class 37s once the problems were identified and corrected but then fell foul of BR's anti hydraulic transmission policy hence were scrapped before being able to prove their worth.

 

The interesting question (at least to my mind) is why English Electric got stuff pretty much right first time (20s, 37, 40s, and 55s all did fairly well), while almost every other builder had at least 1 total dud, and most had several...

 

So where do the Baby Deltics fit in that model then?

 

Baby Deltics weren't their finest hour - I must admit I'd forgotten about them.
Possibly their troubles were at least partially caused by the same issue almost everyone else had - they bought in the engines. Most EE locos used engines they had built in house, and from a common family of fairly robust design, rather than the much more pick and mix approach taken by most of the other firms.

 

As a matter of interest, which would be the most powerful in a class 66 and an LMS Duchess? Duchess of Abercorn recorded the highest ever drawbar pull on a British loco something like 3330 hp. How does a 66 compare?

 

According to the relevant page in Wiki:

"Power output 3,250 hp (total); 3,041 hp (traction)"

On tractive effort, it says:

"Starting: 92,000 lbf - except Freightliner 66/6: 105,000 lbf.

Continuous: 58,000 lbf @ 15.9 mph - except for Freightliner 66/6: 67,000 lbf @ 14.0 mph."

 

And, as you pointed out, many other companies had a far worse track record than one dodgy design and four successes (esp. considering just how well the 20s and 37s are regarded, and still going strong).