GB Railfreight in 'locomotive acquisition' talks

[squizzler]

a class 56 donor may require ballasting up to keep the loco weight and adhesion characteristics the same.

Could the ballast be batteries, using some electronics to manage them whilst keeping the rest of the electrical system the same? Carrying weight for the sake of it seems at odds with the modern lean efficient railway.

 

[ac6000cw]

Carrying weight for the sake of it seems at odds with the modern lean efficient railway.

Freight locos (in particular) need weight on the driving axles to maximise adhesion (and hence tractive effort and hauling capacity). It's the most important factor in maximising low-speed tractive effort capability - wheelslip control is next most important. Heavy-haul locos in some other countries have 30+ tonne axleloads for that very reason.

 

[43096]

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.

You can’t sell something that you don’t own!

 

[Spartacus]

Could the ballast be batteries, using some electronics to manage them whilst keeping the rest of the electrical system the same? Carrying weight for the sake of it seems at odds with the modern lean efficient railway.

As ac6000cw has said above, plus the reason for doing it this way is to keep it cheap. Creating some sort of prototype hybrid wouldn't be so cheap.

 

[Suraggu]

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?

No the engine will have power I Tolerance with th

You can’t sell something that you don’t own!

Glad you beat me to the punch on that one.

 

[Suraggu]

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.

The Class 70 situation with Freightliner is actually quite complex and not as straight forward as it seems.

 

[Suraggu]

43096 beat me to the punch on that.

 

[BRX]

No the engine will have power I Tolerance with th

What does this mean?

 

[Suraggu]

What does this mean?

I was typing a response, deleted it or believed to have deleted it but it appears that the site kept my draft response.

The engine will be rated at a HP level that all other equipment can cope with that level of power, eg electrical systems, traction motors etc. The Class 69 won't have a higher rated HP than a 66 for instance.

They chose the numbering for the class as that is what is free in the rolling stock library.

 

[Photohunter71]

You can’t sell something that you don’t own!

How long have Freightliner got the lease of the 70's for?

 

[Suraggu]

How long have Freightliner got the lease of the 70's for?

This year from verified sources, but likely to have the lease renewed thanks in part to Freightliner's recent upturn in work.

 

[br60066]

This year from verified sources, but likely to have the lease renewed thanks in part to Freightliner's recent upturn in work.

There goes my dream of a Freightliner class 60 then

 

[anamyd]

I was typing a response, deleted it or believed to have deleted it but it appears that the site kept my draft response.

You can't delete posts yourself. Edit it to say "Delete" and mods will delete it.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

You can't delete posts yourself. Edit it to say "Delete" and mods will delete it.

Report it too, as that saves it being sat there until a moderator chances upon it.

The "delete draft" option comes in handy, too.

 

[grumpyoldman01]

Regarding the comments about EMD engine types, my understanding is that the primary difference between them is stroke, and that the 567, 645, and 710 indicate units of length; I can't remember what the unit of length is, but the 567 has 567 of them, the 645 has 645 of them, and the 710 has 710 of them! Consequently, many spares are common to the different models, hence many for 567 series engines being readily available.

I don't know what the present policy for Alstom and MAN is, but when GEC was the owner of what had originally been English Electric, AEI, Met-Vick, BTH, Ruston, Paxman, Napier, etc, it was policy to supply spares for as long as they were needed; however, sometimes they were expensive as they had to be made specially.

Moreover, there was some commonality between the different versions of the EE/Ruston engine; some of the class 56 engines were built with crankshafts originally purchased by BR as spares for class 40s!

 

[ac6000cw]

my understanding is that the primary difference between them is stroke, and that the 567, 645, and 710 indicate units of length; I can't remember what the unit of length is, but the 567 has 567 of them, the 645 has 645 of them, and the 710 has 710 of them!

The numbers are the capacity (swept volume) of a single cylinder in cubic inches. The new 1010 four-stroke engine continues the naming tradition (the 12-1010J is a 4600hp V12)

Re. the bore and stroke changes between 567, 645 & 710 series engines and part interchangeability - a couple of quotes from this Wikipedia page about the 645 :

In 1951, E. W. Kettering wrote a paper for the ASME entitled, History and Development of the 567 Series General Motors Locomotive Engine,[1] which goes into great detail about the technical obstacles that were encountered during the development of the 567 engine. These same considerations apply to the 645 and 710, as these engines were a logical extension of the 567C, by applying a cylinder bore increase, 645, and a cylinder bore increase and a stroke increase, 710, to achieve a greater power output, without changing the external size of the engines, or their weight, thereby achieving significant improvements in horsepower per unit volume and horsepower per unit weight.

The 645 series engines entered production in 1965. As the 567 series had reached its limits in horsepower increases, a larger displacement was needed; this was accomplished by increasing the bore from 8 1⁄2 in (216 mm) on the 567 series to 9 1⁄16 in (230 mm) on the 645 series, while maintaining the same stroke and deck height. While the crankcase was modified from the 567 series, 567C and later engines (or 567 engines which have been modified to 567C specifications, sometimes referred to as 567AC or 567BC engines) can accept 645 series service parts, such as power assemblies. Conversely, the 567E engine employs a 645E series block with 567 series power assemblies.

 

[GusB]

Regarding the comments about EMD engine types, my understanding is that the primary difference between them is stroke, and that the 567, 645, and 710 indicate units of length; I can't remember what the unit of length is, but the 567 has 567 of them, the 645 has 645 of them, and the 710 has 710 of them! Consequently, many spares are common to the different models, hence many for 567 series engines being readily available.

I don't know what the present policy for Alstom and MAN is, but when GEC was the owner of what had originally been English Electric, AEI, Met-Vick, BTH, Ruston, Paxman, Napier, etc, it was policy to supply spares for as long as they were needed; however, sometimes they were expensive as they had to be made specially.

Moreover, there was some commonality between the different versions of the EE/Ruston engine; some of the class 56 engines were built with crankshafts originally purchased by BR as spares for class 40s!

My initial thoughts were that it may refer to volume, and consulting Wikipedia it advises:

The EMD 710 is a relatively large medium speed two-stroke diesel engine that has 710 cubic inches (11.6 liters) displacement per cylinder

However, the brochure for the 710 quotes a cylinder bore diameter of 9.1in and stroke of 11in (http://s7d2.scene7.com/is/content/Caterpillar/CM20170915-60253-59723), which actually works out at 715.43 cu in.

 

[43096]

Regarding the comments about EMD engine types, my understanding is that the primary difference between them is stroke, and that the 567, 645, and 710 indicate units of length; I can't remember what the unit of length is, but the 567 has 567 of them, the 645 has 645 of them, and the 710 has 710 of them! Consequently, many spares are common to the different models, hence many for 567 series engines being readily available.

567, 645 and 710 are the displacement in cubic inches per cylinder.

I don't know what the present policy for Alstom and MAN is, but when GEC was the owner of what had originally been English Electric, AEI, Met-Vick, BTH, Ruston, Paxman, Napier, etc, it was policy to supply spares for as long as they were needed; however, sometimes they were expensive as they had to be made specially.

MAN's Colchester site is, as far as I know, still supporting older engine types including the Ventura and Valenta. It is also still active in building new VP185 engines.

 

[anamyd]

567, 645 and 710 are the displacement in cubic inches per cylinder.


MAN's Colchester site is, as far as I know, still supporting older engine types including the Ventura and Valenta. It is also still active in building new VP185 engines.

i thought the last VP185s were made in 2003...?

 

[43096]

i thought the last VP185s were made in 2003...?

Nope. Just as an example, MAN are currently delivering an order won back in 2014 for 60 12-cylinder VP185s, spread over 6 years. In this case they are for installation in Taiwanese coastguard patrol vessels.

 

[grumpyoldman01]

Yes thats as I recall, was the company named Procor? then on completion they were transported down to Brush at Loughborough for full fitting out.

Pretty sure this is wrong.

The class 60 shells were built in Wakefield at a plant which was called Procor at the time, but had been Charles Roberts and later became Bombardier; it later closed. Some class 156 shells were also built there, as were nuclear flask wagons (1987/8) and some wagons associated with Channel Tunnel works; in the past, they had built Sheffield's last trams and Blackpool's 'Coronation' cars, and also built bus bodies in the early 1950s.

My recollection is that the Class 92 shells were built by Qualter Hall at Barnsley; they also built the class 325 shells for ABB.

The class 60 cab design was conceived by BR; a number of mock-ups were produced in the Railway Technical Centre - one had a rear-slope similar to SNCF's BB15000/etc design produced by Paul Arzens - and the design adopted was as seen on the class 60 as built. In simple terms, BR's spec said "we want it to look like this".

However, the class 92 design "morphed" over time into something that looked a bit like a class 60; the original Brush tender envisaged construction of body shells and final assembly by BREL at Crewe, and the best way of describing the design offered was to say it was like a class 89 with "flatter" cabs.

 

[grumpyoldman01]

567, 645 and 710 are the displacement in cubic inches per cylinder.

Sorry I got it wrong; my explanation was my interpretation of what I was told by EMD's Sales Manager for Europe nearly 30 years ago!

The explanation came up during discussions with EMD in connection with the aborted class 48 project; if it had gone ahead, EMD were thinking of offering an A1A-A1A double-cab design which would have looked very similar to IE's class 201, and would have had 645 series engines.

 

[hwl]

My initial thoughts were that it may refer to volume, and consulting Wikipedia it advises:
However, the brochure for the 710 quotes a cylinder bore diameter of 9.1in and stroke of 11in (http://s7d2.scene7.com/is/content/Caterpillar/CM20170915-60253-59723), which actually works out at 715.43 cu in.

The bore diameter is actually 9"1/16 (9.0625") not 9.1" so the swept volume is 709.54 cu. in. which rounds to 710. 9"1/16 (9.0625") has just been rounded up to 9.1" in the CAT brochure.

The 645 swept volume is 645.03 cu. in.

 

[Ash Bridge]

Pretty sure this is wrong.


My recollection is that the Class 92 shells were built by Qualter Hall at Barnsley; they also built the class 325 shells for ABB.

Well, the Euroshuttle Brush Tri-Bo class 9 electric locomotive bodyshells were certainly built by Qualter Hall, I've been attempting to locate my Rail/Railway Magazines from the early 90s for confirmation of my recollection regarding the 92s as I was relying purely on memory so very happy to be corrected, though I notice the Class 92 wiki page does also quote Procor as the builder....

 

[alexl92]

Well, the Euroshuttle Brush Tri-Bo class 9 electric locomotive bodyshells were certainly built by Qualter Hall, I've been attempting to locate my Rail/Railway Magazines from the early 90s for confirmation of my recollection regarding the 92s as I was relying purely on memory so very happy to be corrected, though I notice the Class 92 wiki page does also quote Procor as the builder....

I have read a few times that either the body shells were the same or were built at the same place and the 92 was based on the 60.

 

[BRX]

I came across these in an old model railway magazine recently

 

[GrimShady]

I came across these in an old model railway magazine recently

View attachment 59666 View attachment 59667

That actually looks better than what we ended up with!

 

[Grannyjoans]

Looks more like a 60 but with a more rounded roof