Which locos can haul the heaviest freight trains?

[Topgun333]

Which classes in order can haul the heaviest freight trains at 60mph out of the 59s, 60s, 66s, 68s, 70s and 92s?

Just curious to see views.

 

[starrymarkb]

59s - one managed to haul 11,982 tonnes single handed! (A European Record)

 

[exdeus]

I think 59s do haul the heaviest. Here's one timed at 4800 tonnes:

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/H65607/2014/01/29/advanced

But 92s have much more power. Don't know about starting effort though.

 

[cjmillsnun]

In order :-

Class 70
Class 59
Class 60
Class 66
Class 92
Class 68

Tractive effort is where it's at...

 

[Bevan Price]

In order :-

Class 70
Class 59
Class 60
Class 66
Class 92
Class 68

Tractive effort is where it's at...

Usually - but not always. On heavy coal trains from Liverpool Bulk Terminal, Class 60 are better than classes 59 or 66. Classes 59 & 66 seem to have adhesion problems with heavy loads on steepish gradients, especially in poor rail conditions.

 

[455driver]

Usually - but not always. On heavy coal trains from Liverpool Bulk Terminal, Class 60 are better than classes 59 or 66. Classes 59 & 66 seem to have adhesion problems with heavy loads on steepish gradients, especially in poor rail conditions.

A few years ago they sent a 59 up to Liverpool to trial it on the coal trains, it wasnt there long, the exercise hasn't been repeated and 60s are used on those trains now which answers the question.

I think its to do with the super series creep control on the 59 not working below 5? mph but on the 60 it works from 0mph.

 

[Freightmaster]

A few years ago they sent a 59 up to Liverpool to trial it on the coal trains, it wasnt there long, the exercise hasn't been repeated and 60s are used on those trains now which answers the question.

The same thing happened in South Wales - the 59s experienced problems
restarting heavy trains on gradients (such as the stop board at the entrance
to Ebbw Vale steelworks) in anything other than perfect railhead conditions.


MARK

 

[Bill EWS]

Strange subject to dicuss! Locomotives are designed to do certain types of jobs and also have varying power outputs. The 59's were designed to pull the heaviest stone trains. You wouldn't expect another class of locomotive to do the same if it wasn't designed to do so. Even a 59 would struggle on heavy and sharply curved branchlines in comparison with, say, Westbury to Acton. I found the Class 60 to be very impressive under certain conditions.

 

[zn1]

im a great fan of the class 60, they had a difficult upbringing, but soon became an asset of fortitude once they bedded in, in the same way the 90's had problems.

the class 60 is a very underused asset, it has superb grunt and pulling power, they are hands down i think superior to class 66, although their 60mph max speed is prob an issue on liners, but for stone, tanker traffic, their only competitor is i think still the 59's.
I hope that DBS are now seeing the fleet as a totally viable squadron, there is plenty of work for them, if DBS Were to lease them to other operators so they are earning...


having said that - have the 70's been trialled yet on the heaviest yeoman jobs out of merehead and whatley yet ???

 

[Photohunter71]

59's have a lower continuous tractive effort than a 60,whilst they may have a higher starting tractive effort,it's all based on continuous.

 

[TheEdge]

I've always been under the impression while 59s hold the records the 60s are a more "powerful" loco.

 

[edwin_m]

I've always been under the impression while 59s hold the records the 60s are a more "powerful" loco.

"Powerful" doesn't come into it. As others have posted, if you aren't worried about how fast they go, hauling heavy trains is all about tractive effort not power.

 

[Bayum]

I'm confused as to why newer trains such as the class 68 would be less 'powerful' than older trains?

 

[Kneedown]

I went over to the passenger side before 66's appeared and we never touched 59's at Toton, but from my own experience there was nothing that could touch a 60. They breezed the 3000ton Langley tanks on the run down to Landor Street. Impressive when we used to have double headed 37's on the Washwood Heath, wide open all the way with 1000tons less.

 

[Class172]

I'm confused as to why newer trains such as the class 68 would be less 'powerful' than older trains?

Well firstly I would have thought that the class 68 is less powerful due to the duties it is planned to be required for - some locomotives were specifically designed for just pulling heavy loads, where as these more modern locos are expected to do more mixed duties.

As others have said, the more important factor is not the raw power of the engines, but the tractive effort (pulling force) the locomotive can apply.

 

[Beveridges]

Enough trainspotters talk, these are the facts.
In order:


92 - by a very long way
70
2x 37s (put these 1 place higher if dry railhead)
60
59

56/58/66 not much between them

Bo-Bo AC locomotives (plenty of power but only 4 axles limits pulling force at the lower speeds)

37/7s next, closely followed by 47/57, then standard 37s


20s

08s/09s

At the lowest end of the scale are HST Powercars, 67s and 31s

 

[starrymarkb]

I'm confused as to why newer trains such as the class 68 would be less 'powerful' than older trains?

68s are a mixed traffic design, so a compromise between the needs of freight (grunt) and passenger speed.

59s and 60s are designed for low speed heavy haul, they can pull heavy trains but lack the speed for liners or passenger work.

66s are more general purpose then the heavy haul designs.

The ultimate heavy haul has to be the Swedish IORE locomotives.
1,200 kN (270,000 lbf) starting to 32 km/h (20 mph)
1,400 kN (310,000 lbf) starting to 10 km/h (6 mph) in boost mode in case of stalls

Loaded top speed is 50km/h - Return with empty hoppers 60km/h

 

[455driver]

I'm confused as to why newer trains such as the class 68 would be less 'powerful' than older trains?

Power is only part of the story, an 08 can move 1000 tonnes albeit very slowly.
Horsepower+gearing+electronics=tractive effort+speed.

So altering one of the first (gearing to make the loco go faster) will affect the second (in this case lowering the tractive effort but increasing the maximum attainable speed).

 

[Loki]

How about the HS1 rescue shunters and the Chunnel class 9000s ? Shunters are probably fairly weak but those 9000 have Bo-Bo-Bo's.

 

[bigdelboy]

Seems like the case for a tug of war meet to settle the argument.

Could anyone get Jeremy clarkson to Gomshall to organise it ?

(Gomshall is good as it has caravans and a foot crossing to keep him interested ... and its got points too .... its not really central though and it hasn't got wires).

 

[Photohunter71]

Enough trainspotters talk, these are the facts.
In order:


92 - by a very long way
70
2x 37s (put these 1 place higher if dry railhead)
60
59

56/58/66 not much between them

Bo-Bo AC locomotives (plenty of power but only 4 axles limits pulling force at the lower speeds)

37/7s next, closely followed by 47/57, then standard 37s


20s

08s/09s

At the lowest end of the scale are HST Powercars, 67s and 31s

Have to agree,it's how I'd have placed the order of running. But how about 90's and 86's?

 

[HSTEd]

Whilst tractive effort is very important for determining if a train can be hauled up a slope, power is also very important.

It is no good having a locomotive that haul a train up an incline on the main line if it can only grind up at walking pace.

 

[sprinterguy]

Have to agree,it's how I'd have placed the order of running. But how about 90's and 86's?

They're mentioned half-way down that list: Collectively grouped under "Bo-Bo AC locomotives".

 

[Photohunter71]

They're mentioned half-way down that list: Collectively grouped under "Bo-Bo AC locomotives".

Did see it....doh!!

 

[GB]

Kind of cheating to suggest 2x class 37 isn't it?

 

[Yew]

Kind of cheating to suggest 2x class 37 isn't it?

Wasnt this what was planned to haul nightstar?