GB Railfreight in 'locomotive acquisition' talks

[RichJF]

Nicknames for the 69s:
Grid Snatchers
Zombies
Grid Pinchers

 

[DEAN MURPHY]

They should be renunberes to class 69’s then!

 

[Darandio]

I'm guessing they'll mostly be used top and tail...

I don't get it? Please explain in more detail.....

 

[squizzler]

I don't get it? Please explain in more detail.....

I thought it was funny at least.

Name suggestion: Naughty Grid?

 

[richieb1971]

I don't get it? Please explain in more detail.....

.69 is a well known sexual act that is top n tail.

 

[Darandio]

.69 is a well known sexual act that is top n tail.

Hook, line and sinker.

 

[Photohunter71]

So, according to what's being said, a complete refurbishment with ying ying engines, but believed to get new cabs?!! What design if any have they got for the new cabs? Won't a major heavy overhaul of the current cabs be sufficient? Couldn't they have fitted the 56's out with CAT engines or even MTU's? Anyway, it's interesting to see what emerges from this.
The 69 comments were funny!
Not long until we hear of the new DRS stock!

 

[Suraggu]

So, according to what's being said, a complete refurbishment with ying ying engines, but believed to get new cabs?!! What design if any have they got for the new cabs? Won't a major heavy overhaul of the current cabs be sufficient? Couldn't they have fitted the 56's out with CAT engines or even MTU's? Anyway, it's interesting to see what emerges from this.
The 69 comments were funny!
Not long until we hear of the new DRS stock!

GB insider reports seem to be saying that the 69 fleet will follow the EMD maintenance schedule for class 66's. That will make it even cheaper for GB's maintenance costs having a common pool of spares etc.

 

[delticdave]

Progress Rail still manufacture/sell the medium-speed EMD-branded 2-stroke engines (and the new 1010 series 4-stroke engine) - and there is a Tier-4 compliant marine version of the EMD 710 engine (using SCR after-treatment) available, so I guess they could do a rail version of it if there was enough demand.

The problem with using most Cat (and MTU and Cummins) engines is that they are high-speed (1500 - 1800 rpm) engines, which wouldn't be directly compatible with the existing class 56 alternators. The Cat V20 C175 in the EMD US F125 passenger loco is mated with a third-party (non-EMD) alternator for that reason (that loco is a real mixture of suppliers - bodyshell and bogies from Stadler in Valencia, engine from Cat, alternator from Kato, traction inverters from Mitsubishi, motors and traction control from EMD...)

Is there sufficient space in a 56 body-shell for a Tier-4 compliant 710? (V12 or V16?)

DC

 

[hwl]

Is there sufficient space in a 56 body-shell for a Tier-4 compliant 710? (V12 or V16?)

DC

No the problem is the need to install a very big SCR system to get the NOx down.

 

[bastien]

Hook, line and sinker.

Whoah, I've never seen it done like that.

 

[BRX]

Is there sufficient space in a 56 body-shell for a Tier-4 compliant 710? (V12 or V16?)

DC

I thought the whole point of these refurbs was to get around the emissions regs that would apply if they were new locos.

 

[Emblematic]

I thought the whole point of these refurbs was to get around the emissions regs that would apply if they were new locos.

It is, you are allowed emissions levels one stage below the requirement for new build. Hence the EMD 2-stroke being a likely candidate.

 

[Photohunter71]

Surely it's time Locomotive manufacturers started looking at the UK market and offering a few options of locomotive with the UK loading gauge dimentions. How much would it have cost GBrF to buy new over heavy refurbishments?

 

[hwl]

Surely it's time Locomotive manufacturers started looking at the UK market and offering a few options of locomotive with the UK loading gauge dimentions. How much would it have cost GBrF to buy new over heavy refurbishments?

Probably around 3-5x more. Given UK orders are likely to be low there is very little incentive for manufacturers to do something on their on whim, the FOC will be paying quite a lot for all the up front design work.

 

[Suraggu]

Surely it's time Locomotive manufacturers started looking at the UK market and offering a few options of locomotive with the UK loading gauge dimentions. How much would it have cost GBrF to buy new over heavy refurbishments?

Unless GBRf were willing to purchase the Stadler UKLight and pay DRS the design fee unless they came up with their own design in colaberation with Stadler as ROG's have done with the Class 93 it's unlikely to see any new builds. It's probably cheaper as they own the class 56's outright instead of fairly expensive lease fees for a brand new loco fleet. Its highly unlikely the rebuilds will cost £6 to £7 million as it is for a new build.

Slightly off topic but years and years ago when the new Fleet/Engineering director joined GB rumours abound of the Voith Maxima 40CC being built to a UK gauge was rumoured for some considerable time, but alas it was just a rumour.

 

[delticdave]

No the problem is the need to install a very big SCR system to get the NOx down.

Perhaps I should ask again, is it possible to install a 710 engine into a 56 body, including whatever equipment is needed to allow it to operate on the UK railway system....... Obviously with sufficient space for the generators, cooling systems, etc.

 

[squizzler]

Perhaps I should ask again, is it possible to install a 710 engine into a 56 body, including whatever equipment is needed to allow it to operate on the UK railway system....... Obviously with sufficient space for the generators, cooling systems, etc.

It should be as the 710, I think, has the same block as the older model that went into what became the class 57's, just increased a bit in bore and/or stroke.

I can't believe they install these antiques in locos still. 'Murcan rubbish.

 

[Suraggu]

It should be as the 710, I think, has the same block as the older model that went into what became the class 57's, just increased a bit in bore and/or stroke.

I can't believe they install these antiques in locos still. 'Murcan rubbish.

What amazes me is that EMD still supply parts for the 567 engines from the 50's.

 

[konstant]

No the problem is the need to install a very big SCR system to get the NOx down.

There is no need for any emissions control systems. The engine change is deemed as an upgrade over the original in terms of emissions and thus there is no requirement to adhere to any later standards requiring SCR systems.

In response to the person asking is it possible to fit it all in, the answer is yes. The drawings are out there. The chassis mods can be counted on one hand.

No changes to the cab.

 

[hwl]

It should be as the 710, I think, has the same block as the older model that went into what became the class 57's, just increased a bit in bore and/or stroke.

I can't believe they install these antiques in locos still. 'Murcan rubbish.

Stroke increased by 1"

 

[hwl]

There is no need for any emissions control systems. The engine change is deemed as an upgrade over the original in terms of emissions and thus there is no requirement to adhere to any later standards requiring SCR systems.

I know that but was responding to the point about space for SCR rather than the need for it. Hence why you can't buy new 66s...

The new 1010 engine is a monster. A V12 engine but with the same cylinder stroke /bore as the straight 8 in the cl 60s so doesn't stand much chance of fitting.

 

[Emblematic]

There is no need for any emissions control systems. The engine change is deemed as an upgrade over the original in terms of emissions and thus there is no requirement to adhere to any later standards requiring SCR systems.

In response to the person asking is it possible to fit it all in, the answer is yes. The drawings are out there. The chassis mods can be counted on one hand.

No changes to the cab.

To be pedantic, engines used for repowering currently need to meet UIC Stage IIIA emissions standards, equivalent to the old EC IIIA standard. The EC IIIB standards were, unusually, not applied to engines fitted as upgrades, as there was a lack of available engines on the market (the same rationale that the flexibility scheme was created, which permitted the continued production of classes 66 and 68 well after the start date for EC IIIB emissions.) Hence the EC directive was amended from the draft, to only apply to new-build locomotives. It's likely that EC Stage V will again cover retrofit engines, partly because there are minimal changes from stage IIIB for locomotives, so no concerns over engine availability.
None of the emissions standards mandate any equipment, just emissions levels which need to be met. IIIA was thought to require widespread DPF fitment, but many large engines were able to meet the standard without one, albeit using other techniques.

 

[squizzler]

What amazes me is that EMD still supply parts for the 567 engines from the 50's.

Still available for English Electric CSV, which stands to reason as their use in class 37's mean they continue to wear out parts.

 

[Grannyjoans]

Rail Magazine is reporting that the re-engined 56s are expected to be numbered as ‘69s’

Does this mean they will have a more powerful engine than a Class 68 ?

Usually the higher the class number the more power. The only exception being the class 57.

Why can't class 61 ~ 64 ever get used ?

Are these 69's likely to sound exactly like a 66 with the distinctive yinging sound?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

...
Slightly off topic but years and years ago when the new Fleet/Engineering director joined GB rumours abound of the Voith Maxima 40CC being built to a UK gauge was rumoured for some considerable time, but alas it was just a rumour.

There were also similar rumours/wishful thinking about the (Bombardier?) Traxx, which must go down as the silliest name for a locomotive ever.

 

[delticdave]

Yes, the P160 UK proposal, for Liv.St to Norwich.

As for Traxx it = "Transnational Railway Applications with eXtreme fleXibility".......
German / Canadian humour perhaps?

 

[angryskipfan]

So, it looks very likely that they will be fitted with GM710 engines which have a similar speed range (redline 900 rpm) as the Ruston 16RK3CT and similar power output which keeps down the costs as changes to the electrical equipment would be restricted. The CAT C175-16 or C175-12 would have a suitable power output range but the engine is a high speed type (2100 redline) so would need a different alternator, AVR system and modifications to the traction control system which would increase the complexity and costs of the conversion. Conversion to 3 phase drives whilst a technically excellent solution would probably cost as much as a new loco and there are the additional approvals required which would delay introduction so I think conversion work would be limited in scope.

There may however be benefits in improving the wheelslip control with modern electronics and I understand that BRUSH addressed this aspect on the class 57. There is also the spare parts pool and aftermarket support for this engine which is very common and well supported around the world. They can use the Class 57 conversion as a starting point although this was a GM645 E3. I recall that at the time of the BRUSH class 57 conversion BRUSH claimed that the cost was 50% that of a new loco. Does this still hold true?

The existing Ruston 16RK3CT has a total displacement of 240L, whilst the GM710 V12 has a displacement of 140L and a dry mass of up to 25 Tonnes. It is very likely that the GM710 will be lighter and slightly smaller than the 16RK3CT and a class 56 donor may require ballasting up to keep the loco weight and adhesion characteristics the same. This was required on the Class 57 as the sulzer 12LDA is a heavy lump.

With a conversion there is always the danger that more work will be required than originally envisaged and costs and timescales can escalate rapidly, compared to a new build at a fixed price. The new build will also have a longer service life and higher residual value after the HS2? haulage contracts have been fulfilled.

There is also the possibility that the conversion is a bargaining strategy to get DBS to lease or sell them some class 66's on favourable terms as I am not convinced that DBS has work for all their class 66's.

The only new build loco available for the UK market at present is the UK light family from Stadler, but it is not really a heavy haul loco, but a re geared version optimised for heavy haul may be possible.

 

[43096]

There were also similar rumours/wishful thinking about the (Bombardier?) Traxx, which must go down as the silliest name for a locomotive ever.

I doubt Bombardier are too bothered by opinions of the name given they have sold around 2,000 of them.

 

[Photohunter71]

Unless GBRf were willing to purchase the Stadler UKLight and pay DRS the design fee unless they came up with their own design in colaberation with Stadler as ROG's have done with the Class 93 it's unlikely to see any new builds. It's probably cheaper as they own the class 56's outright instead of fairly expensive lease fees for a brand new loco fleet. Its highly unlikely the rebuilds will cost £6 to £7 million as it is for a new build.

Slightly off topic but years and years ago when the new Fleet/Engineering director joined GB rumours abound of the Voith Maxima 40CC being built to a UK gauge was rumoured for some considerable time, but alas it was just a rumour.

I think there should have been the scope for a UK version of the Voith Maxima, Surely with Freightliners class 70's having not much to do, they could have sold them on to GBRf. But as is mentioned, GBRf didn't want them. If,and only if the container market picks up which it is projected to do, surely there would be work for all the types?
Anyway, back to the 56 conversions, so there will be no changes to the cabs? I had read elsewhere that there would be.