Class 58s

[Masboroughlad]

Why did the class 58s not get the life extension that the 56s and 60s got.

 

[Spartacus]

The 58s weren't nearly as powerful as a 60, and while nominally virtually the same as a 56 I think they had a tendency to be light footed, which meant maximum power often couldn't be used. They may have been more expensive to maintain than the 56s too, partially because they were a small, relatively non-standard class. Even though they returned better availability than the 56s this was largely due to them being easier to work on rather than being more reliable in the first place, so would be returned to traffic quicker, which wasn't something really needed with dozens of spare locos sat around.

 

[Speed43125]

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.

 

[Dunfanaghy Rd]

Very light on their feet. The first time I encountered one (Woking Up Yard) it brought a train of ballast hoppers in to run round. A brake application on slightly weedy track had the loco pick up and the wagons stop the train. "These engines are designed to work on NCB track?", I thought (and we all know what NCB track looked like).
Pat

 

[jopsuk]

what about them made them "light on their feet"? Looking at the figures available, the tare weight are listed as:
Class 58: 130t
Class 56: 125t
Class 60: 129/131t

So what was it that meant they were less effective?

 

[Hairy Bear]

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..

 

[CW2]

When they were launched, there were hopes of gaining export orders. Seriously delusional!

 

[Kneedown]

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..

I remember slipping to a stand with one at Toton Centre. Had 42 HAA's on from Calverton. Strange thing was it got up the hill out of Calverton ok!

 

[Spartacus]

Funny thing is that the Hornby model was a bit light on it's feet too! After a friend brought me one to examine I discovered that the gap between the bogies and the frame was rather tight so that on rough track or at a change in gradient one bogie would run against the frame, lifting at least one pair of wheels slightly, enough to lose grip and stall the train. I think it rather put him off making a layout then!

 

[Helvellyn]

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.

 

[themiller]

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.

 

[nowinaminute]

The talk of wheelslip is reminding me of this photo:

https://www.railpictures.net/showimage.php?id=105113&key=3221287

 

[D365]

IIRC, it was fitted to 58050 as a demonstration of effectiveness ready for a following class.

Was it linked to the development of the Class 60, or is that another of wikipedia's myths?

 

[Bevan Price]

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.

 

[themiller]

Was it linked to the development of the Class 60, or is that another of wikipedia's myths?

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’.

 

[43096]

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’.

Class 60 uses SEPEX.

 

[Wyrleybart]

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..

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.

Two options would have been either replace the bogies, or rewire the control system, probably with SEPEX whoch was proven. Pity neither TLF nor EWS wanted to spend the cash, particularly with the new 60s, then 66s coming on stream.

 

[Merle Haggard]

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.

 

[Dunfanaghy Rd]

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.

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

 

[37114]

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

Correct, they were only used on speedlink trains during the miners strikes.

 

[simonw]

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.

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.

 

[Merle Haggard]

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

Thanks, I am sure that you are right as far as use, but I was referring to their conception.
Once Railfreight business management 'found its feet', it took a more pro-active approach to traction requirements and specification. This took the form of providing forecasts for traffic levels in future use, and the implications that had for traction requirements - all pretty basic business management, of course, but something that was thought to have lapsed, the cart (M&EE) being thought to be leading the horse (the business). A (I think, 5 year) traction plan was produced annually to show traction requirements and thereby shortfalls (traffic was increasing then) and how those gaps could be filled. For general circulation (which even included minions like me, in a half-forgotten corner of 222) detail was not great, but I recollect (perhaps wrongly, I accept) that it did give the impression that there was a correlation between Speedlink traffic requirements and the class 58s. Circumstantially, a fleet of 50 would possibly be around the fleet requirement for the trunk haul element of the Sp'link network.
In the event, Speedlink did not achieve the high hopes at its inception, and later relied on fully-depreciated locos using up their last remaining hours before hitting the magic 10,000 to try to keep costs down to a level to match income (A.K.A. the 'limp-along fleet'). I'm not even sure how long the intention to use 58s on Sp'link lasted - if it was indeed ever the case.
As an aside, the teenage trainspotter in me never totally went away and I was always interested in documents relating to traction, but any queries that even suggested an interest would have been considered un-professional and career limiting.

 

[CW2]

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.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

When they were launched, there were hopes of gaining export orders. Seriously delusional!

I seem to remember that getting discussed in a Modern Railways article in 1983 (off the top of my head)

 

[Wyrleybart]

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.

We actually used them on all sorts of jobs. The Donnington tripper (target 19) was one, during the 1984 strikes.

Over at Saltley they were often used on the "Dover cars" with a Saltley man to and from Acton. One regret I have is never noting the number of a 58 we assisted on the Dover empties. We had a pair of 20s and had worked a 7Z29 from Four Ashes with bitumen empties for Fawley, planned to Banbury. We picked up conductors at Eastleigh which was quite amusing because the Eastleigh driver was effing and blinding about Saltley men and relieving on the ballast. We just let him continue his rant !!!

Anyway Saturday morning plodding back light from Totton and dropping the conductors back off at Eastleigh, we got to Tilehurst on the Down Main when we were SBS and advised that the Dover empties had failed in front of us, and we were needed to push it into Didcot yard. The guard met us at the peg and took us onto the rear cartic, then walked back to his engine. We pushed the train to Didcot and into the yard, then ran round ready to take it back to Brum. The young Saltley driver climbed onto our footplate and said "right then drive, I'll have em now" Drive said "oh no you won't, it's my train now. You can either get back on your loco, or go catch a passenger from there" pointing to Didcot station.

We were stopped at Acocks Green and told that the shunters at Bordesley had gone home, so would we take them to Bromford, the driver had already anticipated, as well as dragging ther demic 58 back to Bescot. Thinking back I suppose it was quite rare to see choppers west of Southampton, but it was barely daybreak on a Saturday morning so never saw any photos of our little excursion.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I seem to remember that getting discussed in a Modern Railways article in 1983 (off the top of my head)

The design included the option of fitting just the No.1 end cab and going for a bonnet at the No.2 end, just for such export orders.

The delusional part of BREL wasn't that their equipment wasn't desirable overseas - it was frequently better than anything GM or GE was building then, but it was sophisticated and needed the sort of maintenance and spare parts supply that simply wasn't available to many overseas customers (or even home customers) who liked the brutal simplicity of a 2-stroke diesel. It's the same with BREL rolling stock - the T4 bogies were a work of art, likewise the Advanced Suburban Bogie, but quite how they might have coped with less tightly controlled track geometry is unclear.

 

[Helvellyn]

There was talk of:

• Class 18 - Type 1, single cab version
• Class 38 - Type 3, two cab version
• Class 88 - AC Electric version

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.

Also, how did the Class 47/9 perform in comparison with a Class 58 given the use of the same bogies/engine?

 

[DGH 1]

There was talk of:

• Class 18 - Type 1, single cab version
• Class 38 - Type 3, two cab version
• Class 88 - AC Electric version

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.

Also, how did the Class 47/9 perform in comparison with a Class 58 given the use of the same bogies/engine?

I know they replaced the hard to fill inside sand boxes with outside ones.

 

[Wookiee]

I always had a soft spot for the 58s, mainly because they were rare as rocking horse doodah on the south coast, where I lived. I remember being quite excited when they started working the 6O86 coal from Didcot to Fratton on weekday evenings - never thought I'd get to see one in Fareham!

 

[Royston Vasey]

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.

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.

There's also reliability and the variable/running costs, which as you imply were probably far more important factors.