Class 59s on the way out ? (being double headed)

[Daytona]

Does anyone know why 66s have been added to the 59s on the Mendip stone trains ?
Hope that it doesn't mean that the 59s are on the way out.

 

[Suraggu]

Fleet move to save a light engine move perhaps?

I know FL started trialing combining two services together in the London area to run back to the Mendips mostly likely to save on paths and additional driver/shunter resources but that's a ballpark guess.

 

[Daytona]

Hmmm dunno, but thanks - the need would be for locos back to the quarries, I guess, as it's normally 1 loco + 20 loaded out to Theale/Acton/Wembley distribution points and 1 loco + 40 empties back to the quarries

I saw a combined empties service from Wembley back to the quarries in October - a Schenker consist towing a FL consist - I couldn't believe my eye's and for a moment, thought they'd adopted American DPU practices, until realisation dawned, that that didn't make sense with the returning empties.

 

[physics34]

Also saw a 59 + 66 combo in wembley yard yesterday

 

[Mollman]

Back in EWS / DB days double headed 59s were quite common on the Jumbo trains, I guess Freightliner are either treating the 59s & 66s as one fleet or doing to 59/66 combo to release more 59s for single work as they are more powerful than a 66 I believe. Given the build quality & reliability I double 59s will be withdrawn for a while yet (perhaps the wires might reach Westbury by then!)

 

[ac6000cw]

Back in EWS / DB days double headed 59s were quite common on the Jumbo trains, I guess Freightliner are either treating the 59s & 66s as one fleet or doing to 59/66 combo to release more 59s for single work as they are more powerful than a 66 I believe. Given the build quality & reliability I double 59s will be withdrawn for a while yet (perhaps the wires might reach Westbury by then!)

The 59s are basically the same diesel engine power rating as a 66 but have higher low-speed tractive effort - they are proper heavy-haul locos (e.g. like the cl. 60s) whereas the 66s are more general-purpose freight locos.

(The 59s also have higher capacity traction motors and alternator, plus their EMD 'super series' wheel-slip control is effective down to lower speeds - it's what makes them suitable for hauling 5000 tonne 'jumbo' stone trains slowly uphill...)

 

[Daytona]

Back in EWS / DB days double headed 59s were quite common on the Jumbo trains

Oh OK, thanks Mollman, I wasn't in the area then

 

[D365]

(The 59s also have higher capacity traction motors and alternator, plus their EMD 'super series' wheel-slip control is effective down to lower speeds - it's what makes them suitable for hauling 5000 tonne 'jumbo' stone trains slowly uphill...)

Why were the 66s ‘down-specced’, so to say?

 

[dubscottie]

Why were the 66s ‘down-specced’, so to say?

EWS already had the 60s for heavy stuff. The 66 needed to be a general purpose loco to replace all the BR stuff and haul everything from trip workings to fast freight. The accounting dept probably said it wasn't worth installing equipment that would only get used once a year.

 

[Doomotron]

EWS already had the 60s for heavy stuff. The 66 needed to be a general purpose loco to replace all the BR stuff and haul everything from trip workings to fast freight. The accounting dept probably said it wasn't worth installing equipment that would only get used once a year.

But then that leaves the debate about the demise of the Class 60s, but that's for another thread.

 

[D365]

But then that leaves the debate about the demise of the Class 60s, but that's for another thread.

Change in EWS senior management is the story I heard. There were several locomotive proposals that got canned over the years.

 

[Speed43125]

Change in EWS senior management is the story I heard. There were several locomotive proposals that got canned over the years.

Vastly diminished market share being the other factor.

 

[ac6000cw]

EWS already had the 60s for heavy stuff. The 66 needed to be a general purpose loco to replace all the BR stuff and haul everything from trip workings to fast freight. The accounting dept probably said it wasn't worth installing equipment that would only get used once a year.

From what was said in magazine articles at the time (based on interviews with senior EWS people), EWS wanted in particular a large fuel tank capacity (it's about 40% greater than a 59) and the radial-steering bogies. This meant saving weight elsewhere in the design, so lighter weight/lower capacity (but sufficient for the intended use) motors and alternator were chosen.

(Mechanically/electrically the 59 is basically a US SD40-2 but with more modern 'Super Series' wheelslip control, no dynamic braking and a large exhaust silencer. The 66 is much more of a mix-and-match export loco design in terms of component parts)

 

[Mollman]

The 59s are basically the same diesel engine power rating as a 66 but have higher low-speed tractive effort - they are proper heavy-haul locos (e.g. like the cl. 60s) whereas the 66s are more general-purpose freight locos.

(The 59s also have higher capacity traction motors and alternator, plus their EMD 'super series' wheel-slip control is effective down to lower speeds - it's what makes them suitable for hauling 5000 tonne 'jumbo' stone trains slowly uphill...)

Thanks for the clarification

 

[Dunfanaghy Rd]

Why were the 66s ‘down-specced’, so to say?

I believe that the 59's main generator and traction motors were swapped for small (and lighter) versions. This gave the 66's a much larger fuel tank for the same weight. It also means that 66's can't endure a long, slow slog as well as the 59's, as the electrickery gets too hot too quickly.
Pat