DB Cargo Class 67's up for sale

[Rhysdabeast]

DB Cargo have today put the following Class 67's up for sale:

Loco	Location
67001	Crewe
67003	Toton
67004	Toton
67009	Crewe
67011	Crewe
67018	Crewe
67019	Toton
67026	Crewe
67028	Crewe
67030	Toton

Disposals

Assets such as locomotives, wagons, coaching stock and nameplates that are surplus to requirements are made available to buy from DB Cargo UK.

uk.dbcargo.com

 

[DarloRich]

Are they in working order?

 

[Quincy]

Does anyone know/ could estimate how much they’d be/ go for?

 

[sd0733]

Are they in working order?

028 certainly is as Its the current rescue loco at Canton for the TfW sets and was used on the valleys last week for some testing

 

[Murray J]

Are they in working order?

judging by a quick look on flickr 67028 is the only one that's currently active, the rest have been out of service from anywhere between 2 and 9 years.

 

[fgwrich]

I wonder why 002 isn't on that list (too much of a basket case perhaps?), while 003 has some very temperamental ETS - During its Arriva year's, it spent more time working freight than it did out of Canton. It's not a good one either.

Looking at Flickr - it suggests either 011 or 019 has spent the longest in storage, with 019 looking particularly rough at Toton.

 

[43096]

I wonder why 002 isn't on that list (too much of a basket case perhaps?), while 003 has some very temperamental ETS - During its Arriva year's, it spent more time working freight than it did out of Canton. It's not a good one either.

Isn’t 002 the “first in class” ETCS fit which is being worked on currently?

 

[Rhysdabeast]

I wonder why 002 isn't on that list (too much of a basket case perhaps?), while 003 has some very temperamental ETS - During its Arriva year's, it spent more time working freight than it did out of Canton. It's not a good one either.

Looking at Flickr - it suggests either 011 or 019 has spent the longest in storage, with 019 looking particularly rough at Toton.

019 was stored in March 2015 and 011 was stored in June 2016 so 019 has spent the longest in storage

 

[D365]

Isn’t 002 the “first in class” ETCS fit which is being worked on currently?

Correct - and given its history, I doubt it would be anyone’s first choice if it did go up for sale.

 

[webbstar11]

DB Cargo have today put the following Class 67's up for sale:

Loco	Location
67001	Crewe
67003	Toton
67004	Toton
67009	Crewe
67011	Crewe
67018	Crewe
67019	Toton
67026	Crewe
67028	Crewe
67030	Toton

Disposals

Assets such as locomotives, wagons, coaching stock and nameplates that are surplus to requirements are made available to buy from DB Cargo UK.

uk.dbcargo.com

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Dec 2023 ==

Dont buy 019

 

[37114]

Correct - and given its history, I doubt it would be anyone’s first choice if it did go up for sale.

As in because of it's Lawrence Hill smash or for another reason?

 

[fgwrich]

As in because of it's Lawrence Hill smash or for another reason?

Yes, it never fully recovered from that. Quite often either the drivers door or engine room doors will randomly open while in motion indicating twisted framework.

 

[D365]

Yes, it never fully recovered from that. Quite often either the drivers door or engine room doors will randomly open while in motion indicating twisted framework.

Given that other 67s are now being put up for sale, it strikes me as bizarre that DBC nominated 002 for the ETCS FiC. Only reason I can think is because it's a "worst case" installation... That, or 002 is a sacrificial lamb...

 

[Nym]

I can safely say that with all the layers of contracts on ETCS, that DB Cargo has zero interest in putting up a good example of a locomotive for First in Class work.

Although having looked at both the 66 and 67 extensively over the years, the chances of any of them being reflective of the balance of the fleet for an installation is basically none.

 

[meld3]

Whilst these locos seem to good for nothing, they surely would make fine Unit Movers, like 37800/884 but much newer.

 

[ExRes]

Whilst these locos seem to good for nothing, they surely would make fine Unit Movers, like 37800/884 but much newer.

Depending on where they have to go, their RA is much higher which could well cause problems, they are also very thirsty which would cut into any profits from that type of work

 

[12LDA28C]

Does anyone know/ could estimate how much they’d be/ go for?

I would estimate a loco in working order could sell for up to six figures, those long-term stored rather less.

 

[cav1975]

Could someone buy them for their engines and make more 69s out of 56s?

 

[ExRes]

Could someone buy them for their engines and make more 69s out of 56s?

You'd have to know if the engine would fit into a 56 body shell, you'd also have to have Colas and/or DCR wanting and willing to do it and prepared to have a less powerful engine hauling their aggregate trains

 

[Robin Procter]

Are the Class 67s which are operated regularly on the Belmond Luxury Pullman trains owned by DB and therefore also likely to be sold in the near future? But to answer my own question, I guess that DB are merely having a tidy up of their stock.

Surely the Class 67s aren't as bad as some people here are suggesting - Haven't they even earned the privilege of hauling Royal trains? They can't be that unreliable.

Depending on where they have to go, their RA is much higher which could well cause problems, they are also very thirsty which would cut into any profits from that type of work

.... Thirstiness probably not a problem for highly profitable trains like those operated by Belmond. Reliability is more important.

 

[12LDA28C]

Surely the Class 67s aren't as bad as some people here are suggesting - Haven't they even earned the privilege of hauling Royal trains? They can't be that unreliable.

Who said that the 67s are unreliable? More likely that there is no work for them, in fact the work that they were ordered and built for evaporated within just a few years of their introduction.

 

[43096]

Who said that the 67s are unreliable?

TfW?

 

[12LDA28C]

TfW?

Even if that were the case, that would not be the reason for DB selling off ten locos.

 

[randyrippley]

Any sense in using these as parts donors for another batch of upgraded class 56s? Use the diesel and alternator from the 67, body, bogies and traction motors from the 56? Class 69/2 or similar?

 

[Rail Quest]

Given that other 67s are now being put up for sale, it strikes me as bizarre that DBC nominated 002 for the ETCS FiC. Only reason I can think is because it's a "worst case" installation... That, or 002 is a sacrificial lamb...

I can safely say that with all the layers of contracts on ETCS, that DB Cargo has zero interest in putting up a good example of a locomotive for First in Class work.

Tbf, I'm asking the question of why 67s would even need ETCS fittings. By the time ETCS ends up being rolled out onto routes that the class 67s currently operate, I doubt the class will still be around. The only exception perhaps is the Royal Train and Belmond Pullman working up the ECML but that seems like a lot of money to fit ETCS to DB's remaining skips to justify just on the basis of those two trains.

Now that 67s are no longer used on ECML Thunderbirds to my knowledge, is there any other reason to fit ETCS to the class?

 

[BlueLeanie]

So much opportunity for speculation!

Could someone buy them for their engines and make more 69s out of 56s?

Now that could get interesting. Switch out the engines to make more 69s.

Then rebuild the 67s with a less thirsty engine, such as the MTU 1,600 hp V8 engines as fitted to the smaller Caledonian Sleeper 73s. There might even be enough space left to pop in a few big batteries to make it a hybrid.

(Still think it's a terrible shame that they weren't Co-Co units, they would have been far more useful across the network.)

 

[12LDA28C]

(Still think it's a terrible shame that they weren't Co-Co units, they would have been far more useful across the network.)

Of course they were built purely for mail traffic on trunk routes where the Bo-Bo wheel arrangement and RA8 wasn't an issue. Just in time for mail traffic to transfer to road.

 

[JonathanH]

Any sense in using these as parts donors for another batch of upgraded class 56s?

How many class 56 donors are left for that?

 

[Rail Quest]

Any sense in using these as parts donors for another batch of upgraded class 56s? Use the diesel and alternator from the 67, body, bogies and traction motors from the 56? Class 69/2 or similar?

Given the 67s use a different EMD engine from the sheds and were built by Alstom, rather than EMD themselves, I'd assume such locos would be quite non-standard in the GBRf fleet, even when compared to the existing 69s. Tbf, given how long such conversions would take - it wouldn't surprise me if GBRf would have already started receiving Class 99s by the time Longport figure out how to create such a loco

 

[ac6000cw]

Given the 67s use a different EMD engine from the sheds

They don't - it's V12 710 series diesel engine (12N-710G3B-EC, I think), same as in the original EWS 66's. Some later-built 66's have more modern variants of that engine due to changing emissions requirements.

The cl. 67 alternator is different (to support an ETS supply) as are the traction motors (they are frame-mounted rather than axle-hung, to support 125mph capability).