Potential future uses for class 68 & Mk5 sets?

[Whistler40145]

I believe it was until generators were fitted in the DVTs as they had an extremely loud tickover when supplying ETS.

The engine revs would be higher providing ETH

 

[Greybeard33]

Yes. After the solution is found. In the meantime would not want to admit there is a problem in case they don't find a solution.

As the saying goes "you can't get a quart into a pint pot". Presumably if there was room for a bigger silencer in the 68, it would have been included in the original design.

 

[12LDA28C]

Would switching back to using 67's be a solution?

I don't know the background that lead to the 68s replacing 67s, presumably fuel economy, emissions etc but given the unacceptable noise the 68s generate, could 67s be the least worst option?

The whole point is that the Mk3s are getting tired, parts are becoming scarce and newer stock is sought. So no, 67s are not the solution to that particular problem.

 

[Whistler40145]

Would the 67s have a high enough ETH Index to work with Mk. 5s?

 

[aem7ac]

Would the 67s have a high enough ETH Index to work with Mk. 5s?

TPE considered it according to an article last year in Rail Express. However, I think a bigger issue could be the push-pull control equipment. I remember reading somewhere (probably in this thread) that Chiltern would have to swap its current 68s for former TPE pool 68s in order to have push-pull control compatibility with the Mk5s.

 

[Russel]

The whole point is that the Mk3s are getting tired, parts are becoming scarce and newer stock is sought. So no, 67s are not the solution to that particular problem.

I'm aware of that, I was responding to the posts regarding the 68 noise...

 

[RobShipway]

TPE considered it according to an article last year in Rail Express. However, I think a bigger issue could be the push-pull control equipment. I remember reading somewhere (probably in this thread) that Chiltern would have to swap its current 68s for former TPE pool 68s in order to have push-pull control compatibility with the Mk5s.

The problem that you have got is that it is more difficult I would suspect to get parts for the class 67 locos, than the class 68 which is made by Stadler being based on their Eurolight locomotives.

I believe that the class 67 loco's, where a one off design by Alstom and whilst the traction motors, plus control electronics are from GM-EMD, which is the same as on the class 66. The traction motors in the class 67 are frame mounted rather than axle hung, which reduces unsprung mass and gear ratio is increased allowing for higher speeds to be achieved. So, even though parts from class 66 can be used with class 67, I would suspect that they are more difficult to obtain than parts for Eurolight locomotives, which are used in Spain and Asia, but are also used within Stadler Euro Dual locomotives as well across Europe and in Africa.

 

[43096]

The problem that you have got is that it is more difficult I would suspect to get parts for the class 67 locos, than the class 68 which is made by Stadler being based on their Eurolight locomotives.

I believe that the class 67 loco's, where a one off design by Alstom and whilst the traction motors, plus control electronics are from GM-EMD, which is the same as on the class 66. The traction motors in the class 67 are frame mounted rather than axle hung, which reduces unsprung mass and gear ratio is increased allowing for higher speeds to be achieved. So, even though parts from class 66 can be used with class 67, I would suspect that they are more difficult to obtain than parts for Eurolight locomotives, which are used in Spain and Asia, but are also used within Stadler Euro Dual locomotives as well across Europe and in Africa.

Surely with so many common parts with a 66 there is little difficulty getting spares for 67s. There are literally thousands of EMD 710 engines in use around the world - it is not going out of support any time soon!

 

[Peter Sarf]

I think the problem with the 67s is that they are older and not as powerful as a 68. Furthermore as far as Mk5s are concerned I believe (iirc) the Mk5s were designed to work in multiple with 68s. So arguably more work to do to make 67s and Mk5s work together.

As the saying goes "you can't get a quart into a pint pot". Presumably if there was room for a bigger silencer in the 68, it would have been included in the original design.

The only hope is if a better designed silencer, not necessarily bigger, is the answer. It could be about arranging the baffles to get a different resonant frequency to the engines upper tickover (my little knowledge showing through here).

 

[CyrusWuff]

I think the problem with the 67s is that they are older and not as powerful as a 68. Furthermore as far as Mk5s are concerned I believe (iirc) the Mk5s were designed to work in multiple with 68s. So arguably more work to do to make 67s and Mk5s work together.


The only hope is if a better designed silencer, not necessarily bigger, is the answer. It could be about arranging the baffles to get a different resonant frequency to the engines upper tickover (my little knowledge showing through here).

The main issues with 67s are that they drink fuel like there's no tomorrow, and hammer the track due to the frame-mounted traction motors - making them RA8 vice the RA7 of the 68s.

 

[RobShipway]

Surely with so many common parts with a 66 there is little difficulty getting spares for 67s. There are literally thousands of EMD 710 engines in use around the world - it is not going out of support any time soon!

As someone once said to me in these forums, it is not just about availability of engine parts when it comes to keeping locomotives going!

As @CyrusWuff points out above, the class 67's drink fuel like it is going out of fashion and there is very little ability to convert the class 67's to be powered other than by diesel engines. Why do you think that GB Railfreight is going to be leasing class 99 dual mode locomotives to replace their class 66 locos?

 

[Nick Hall]

Swap the 68s for 88s and use them to increase capacity on Manchester Airport/Liverpool - Scotland services.

 

[JonathanH]

Swap the 68s for 88s and use them to increase capacity on Manchester Airport/Liverpool - Scotland services.

Wouldn't they reduce capacity relative to using 397s?

 

[Nick Hall]

You’re assuming they’d replace the 397s, I meant in addition to the 397s.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

But there’s no visible evidence available so for me it is either word of mouth or rumour.

The noise complaints aren’t sufficient evidence to me that mods are in the offing. Likewise mentioning it regularly without physical evidence means the same.

But this was the same with the future of 175s at Northern, and you seemed quite offended when people didn't take your comments on them as read. This is much the same thing.

Swap the 68s for 88s and use them to increase capacity on Manchester Airport/Liverpool - Scotland services.

Operated by TPE, who have just been made to get rid of the sets (that they good as never used). Why would the DfT send them back to the TOC they've just forced them away from?

 

[Nick Hall]

I don’t think DFT would, I was just responding to the thread title.
Rationale being that the noise issue would be solved, TPE have experience of operating the mk 5 so less training than with a new operator and any 802 on Scottish diagrams could be moved to the north trans Pennine route strengthening that. (I know 802 have to get to Scotland for maintenance)
But as you say, probably unlikely.

 

[12LDA28C]

I'm aware of that, I was responding to the posts regarding the 68 noise...

So as the 67s can't work with the Mk5s then no, unfortunately using 67s would not be any kind of solution. Pointless training drivers up to use 67s (even if 67s were available) with the current Mk3s when the Mk3s need replacing and if the Mk5s are introduced, 67s can't be used with them as they don't have the necessary control equipment.

 

[Peter Sarf]

So as the 67s can't work with the Mk5s then no, unfortunately using 67s would not be any kind of solution. Pointless training drivers up to use 67s (even if 67s were available) with the current Mk3s when the Mk3s need replacing and if the Mk5s are introduced, 67s can't be used with them as they don't have the necessary control equipment.

This reminds us that the (Ex) TPE Mk5s are hard to use with locomotives other than 68s (may 88s also ?) due to compatibility meaning more work/modifications required.

 

[mike57]

This reminds us that the (Ex) TPE Mk5s are hard to use with locomotives other than 68s (may 88s also ?) due to compatibility meaning more work/modifications required.

Given the 68 noise issues, small fleet size, the fact that they are really an unpowered EMU which cant be easily reformed and potential reliability problems no one will want them, but they may get pushed on to an operator.

Which brings me to the conclusion that they the lightest achromatic member of the order Proboscidea

 

[jagardner1984]

It is surely final testament to the folly of TPE’s “well have 4 of everything please” procurement strategy - where again you are left with a not ideal number of trains trying to be shoehorned into a not ideal format of routes. The Mk5s are an extreme example to be in this situation so soon after purchase, but this will surely happen increasingly - was notable watching Geoff Marshall’s 701 video how many variants of a mechanically very similar train there now are. Hopefully whatever strategy (remember them) is put in place after the next organisational shuffle with a new government, there can be some restoration of grouped orders, economies of scale, and inter-compatibility of products deployed in different parts of the network. The current one seems to me entirely, to misquote the Home Secretary, bat…. bonkers.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I can see these fulfilling the roles that Top and Tail 37s with Mk2s have served in the past - covering shortages of DMUs on a set-by-set basis.

 

[12LDA28C]

I can see these fulfilling the roles that Top and Tail 37s with Mk2s have served in the past - covering shortages of DMUs on a set-by-set basis.

Can you? I don't believe that's been suggested by anyone else.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Can you? I don't believe that's been suggested by anyone else.

Its a waste of thirteen whole sets but better than doing nothing with them of course. Thinking about it more - with DRS disposing of the last six of their 37s the fourteen or so 68s formerly used with the TPE Mk5s have more openings. That would mainly be for non-passenger. However I could see DRS using their drivers and 68s while spot hiring in a rake or two of Mk5s. That is if a TOC approaches DRS for some DMU cover like in the past. Roll on summer Saturday workings ! [/dream]. The owner of the Mk5s will be happy to see them warmed up every now and again. Not ideal......

 

[12LDA28C]

Its a waste of thirteen whole sets but better than doing nothing with them of course. Thinking about it more - with DRS disposing of the last six of their 37s the fourteen or so 68s formerly used with the TPE Mk5s have more openings. That would mainly be for non-passenger. However I could see DRS using their drivers and 68s while spot hiring in a rake or two of Mk5s. That is if a TOC approaches DRS for some DMU cover like in the past. Roll on summer Saturday workings ! [/dream]. The owner of the Mk5s will be happy to see them warmed up every now and again. Not ideal......

I believe more than one operator has expressed an interest in using some or all of the 68 / Mk5 fleet so it's rather unlikely that 'nothing will be done' with them as you suggest may happen.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I believe more than one operator has expressed an interest in using some or all of the 68 / Mk5 fleet so it's rather unlikely that 'nothing will be done' with them as you suggest may happen.

Well that is good news as long as it goes beyond just asking for a price. Do we know who is interested ?. Anyone able to divulge ?.

Although, if it is only some that find a full use then the leftovers might be ideal for spot hire.

 

[43096]

Well that is good news as long as it goes beyond just asking for a price. Do we know who is interested ?. Anyone able to divulge ?.

Widely reported as Chiltern.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Widely reported as Chiltern.

Ah. Yes that has been widely mentioned. My money is on Chiltern (and taking all/most off them) but just waiting to see if the 68s noise can be tamed.

I would think any other potential uses are more speculative but still tempting to explore / discuss !.

 

[gingertom]

Ah. Yes that has been widely mentioned. My money is on Chiltern (and taking all/most off them) but just waiting to see if the 68s noise can be tamed.

I would think any other potential uses are more speculative but still tempting to explore / discuss !.

do you suppose Chiltern taking them could be dependent on the owners tackling the noise issue with the 68s? Otherwise it'll be some other stock?

 

[Peter Sarf]

do you suppose Chiltern taking them could be dependent on the owners tackling the noise issue with the 68s? Otherwise it'll be some other stock?

Definitely. Chiltern will not want to continue with 68s unless something can be done to mitigate the noise.

The Mk3s are getting old (corrosion issues ISTR). The Mk5s are designed to work with 68s as they are (so perfect match for Mk5s) so its a bigger step/cost if Chiltern take on the Mk5s but not the 68s. Another locomotive would have to be built or converted to work with the Mk5s or the Mk5s altered to work with - say 67s. So the alternative to 68s is not going to be so attractive.

I expect the Mk3s could well be replaced by a larger fleet. Maybe larger than the Mk5 fleet !.

 

[sjpowermac]

Definitely. Chiltern will not want to continue with 68s unless something can be done to mitigate the noise.

The Mk3s are getting old (corrosion issues ISTR). The Mk5s are designed to work with 68s as they are (so perfect match for Mk5s) so its a bigger step/cost if Chiltern take on the Mk5s but not the 68s. Another locomotive would have to be built or converted to work with the Mk5s or the Mk5s altered to work with - say 67s. So the alternative to 68s is not going to be so attractive.

I expect the Mk3s could well be replaced by a larger fleet. Maybe larger than the Mk5 fleet !.

The Chiltern tender closed today, 02.02.2024 at 0900 so I guess we will find out soon, perhaps even by the end of the month.