Masboroughlad
Established Member
Why did the class 58s not get the life extension that the 56s and 60s got.
EWS ordered 250 class 66s, which was anticipated to be enough to replace all the BR fleet barring 60s and 58s. Unfortunately, between the order being placed and the locos arriving the work that they were getting had decreased substantially as EWS lost market share to various smaller FOCs - consequently many 66s got sent abroad and many more BR locos got canned than was planned (IIRC this competition is why they thought it necessary to sent many serviceable locos to the scrapyard rather than sell them openly). 60s had/have a reprieve due to their better ability to haul extremely heavy loads (eg. Coal flows) than the 66s.Why did the class 58s not get the life extension that the 56s and 60s got.
Springs on the bogie. When pulling away the weight transfered to the rear bogie causing them to loose traction. They had new springs fitted mid 80's which improved things a bit.
Never as good at putting power to the rail like a 56 could though..
IIRC, it was fitted to 58050 as a demonstration of effectiveness ready for a following class.I always wondered why BR didn't retrofit the 58s with SEPEX (SEParately EXcited) equipment to improve the light-footedness given that the equipment was supposedly successful on 58050.
IIRC, it was fitted to 58050 as a demonstration of effectiveness ready for a following class.
It may have been a strategy to get an order for 58/1s. I think that the 60s were an answer to the 59s and designed around ‘super creep’.Was it linked to the development of the Class 60, or is that another of wikipedia's myths?
Class 60 uses SEPEX.It may have been a strategy to get an order for 58/1s. I think that the 60s were an answer to the 59s and designed around ‘super creep’.
It was explained to me in the 1980s that the bogie design was the problem in that the third and sixth axle of the loco "dug in", the torque causing the bogie frame to lift slightly and giving axles 1 and 2, 4 and 5 less adhesion. Because of this axles 1,2 4 and 5 developed a slip which the traction control sensed, and eased off to all the motors, when the bogie frame restored and the wheelsets all "dug in" - then repeat and repeat.Springs on the bogie. When pulling away the weight transferred to the rear bogie causing them to loose traction. They had new springs fitted mid 80's which improved things a bit.
Never as good at putting power to the rail like a 56 could though..
My memory (always subject to correction, of course) is that they were intended for MGR work. Certainly my first sighting of one was on a MGR train awaiting departure from a colliery.I recollect(I think) that the 58s were specified for Speedlink trains, which were 75 mph but not as heavy as the bulk trains. This might explain their apparent shortcomings on max. load.
I think that there was an intention around this time to introduce a small number of designs to meet more specific requirements, including the Class 38 (or was it 39???) which of course never happened.
Correct, they were only used on speedlink trains during the miners strikes.My memory (always subject to correction, of course) is that they were intended for MGR work. Certainly my first sighting of one was on a MGR train awaiting departure from a colliery.
Pat
I've heard the argument before that because the 66s are hired this influenced the decision whether or not to use them. Unfortunately, it doesn't make sense. The hire fees would be payable whether or not the lock was used and therefore as fixed costs should have not influenced the decision.Class 66s were hired, and EWS had to pay the hire fees even if the locos were not being used. Classes 56 & 58 were owned by EWS - so zero hire fees. So - a business decision - use the locos on which money had to be spent.
Class 60 nearly went the same way as Classes 56 & 58, until it was found that there were some jobs on which Class 66 encountered "problems", especially with heavy loads in bad weather. Hence some Class 60s were refurbished to work those "difficult" jobs.
My memory (always subject to correction, of course) is that they were intended for MGR work. Certainly my first sighting of one was on a MGR train awaiting departure from a colliery.
Pat
I seem to remember that getting discussed in a Modern Railways article in 1983 (off the top of my head)When they were launched, there were hopes of gaining export orders. Seriously delusional!
We actually used them on all sorts of jobs. The Donnington tripper (target 19) was one, during the 1984 strikes.The use of 58s on Speedlink trains was relatively rare, but it did occur around Bescot on occasion.
The projected Speedlink tonnages were radically affected by first the Coal Sector setting up its own separate Speedlink Coal network, and then the Construction and Metals sectors doing likewise. With sectorisation of the freight business, the base loads of many Speedlink trains were consolodated into trainloads of their parent sectors, so the Speedlink tonnages fell radically.
I seem to remember that getting discussed in a Modern Railways article in 1983 (off the top of my head)
I know they replaced the hard to fill inside sand boxes with outside ones.There was talk of:
Coming back to the bogies I think there was a design change on, I want to say, the last 15 locomotives? I'll need to dig out an old OPC book on them.
- Class 18 - Type 1, single cab version
- Class 38 - Type 3, two cab version
- Class 88 - AC Electric version
Also, how did the Class 47/9 perform in comparison with a Class 58 given the use of the same bogies/engine?
That's true but return on assets, return on capital and return on investment are all frequently focused on by businesses, as well as the basic profit and loss. In the businesses I've run I seem to be asked to focus on a different one every year at random! If return on capital was reported by subfleet then obviously the return on expensive leases being zero looks a lot worse than the return from a largely or fully depreciated asset being zero.I've heard the argument before that because the 66s are hired this influenced the decision whether or not to use them. Unfortunately, it doesn't make sense. The hire fees would be payable whether or not the lock was used and therefore as fixed costs should have not influenced the decision.