Strathclyder
Established Member
I've had a few 57-related questions that have been nagging at me brain for a while. Most are likely easily answered, but I thought I'd throw them to this section of the forum as they're mostly historically-leaning (they concern the genesis of the class and their first 9-10 years; Freightliner withdrawing all the 57/0s by the end of 2007 is my cutoff point here) and not really concerned with the class as things presently stand in 2025 nor about their future (including any preservation prospects). And yes, I think the 57s qualify for a thread here as it's been nearly 28 years since the first of the FL rebuilds emerged from Brush lol
1: What was the process behind the selection of the donor 47s? Of course, overall condition was the biggest deciding factor, as I know of at least one 47/8 (47849) that was ultimately rejected due to structural issues - those issues being most often cited as improperly repaired accident damage thought to date back to the Eltham Well Hall crash in June 1972, as 849 (as D1630) was the loco involved in that accident; I saw one source years ago specifically mention a bent frame - being discovered during the strip-down process. I was wondering if anything else factored into the selection process.
2: Related to the above, were there any other 47s that were rejected from the programme for similar reasons as 849?
3: How many 47s did Freightliner originally plan to convert to 57s before deciding to go all in on brand-new 66s and capping their 57s at 12? Wikipedia says 25 were originally planned in the long-term, but it's Wikipedia lol
4: It's commonly cited that the traction alternator in the 57s is the same model as that used in the Class 56. My main query here is: were the ones used in the 57 rebuilds brand-new or reconditioned examples recovered from withdrawn 56s?
5: What container flows did FL most commonly use their 57s on? Did they ever make it up to Mossend/Coatbridge on occasion when circumstances called for it?
6: What diagrams was 57601 used on during it's time with FGW? I would assume it shared work with the remaining 47/8s at the time.
Those are all I can really think of for now, but if anyone else has similar queries, feel free to drop them here.
1: What was the process behind the selection of the donor 47s? Of course, overall condition was the biggest deciding factor, as I know of at least one 47/8 (47849) that was ultimately rejected due to structural issues - those issues being most often cited as improperly repaired accident damage thought to date back to the Eltham Well Hall crash in June 1972, as 849 (as D1630) was the loco involved in that accident; I saw one source years ago specifically mention a bent frame - being discovered during the strip-down process. I was wondering if anything else factored into the selection process.
2: Related to the above, were there any other 47s that were rejected from the programme for similar reasons as 849?
3: How many 47s did Freightliner originally plan to convert to 57s before deciding to go all in on brand-new 66s and capping their 57s at 12? Wikipedia says 25 were originally planned in the long-term, but it's Wikipedia lol
4: It's commonly cited that the traction alternator in the 57s is the same model as that used in the Class 56. My main query here is: were the ones used in the 57 rebuilds brand-new or reconditioned examples recovered from withdrawn 56s?
5: What container flows did FL most commonly use their 57s on? Did they ever make it up to Mossend/Coatbridge on occasion when circumstances called for it?
6: What diagrams was 57601 used on during it's time with FGW? I would assume it shared work with the remaining 47/8s at the time.
Those are all I can really think of for now, but if anyone else has similar queries, feel free to drop them here.
Last edited:
