Class 67 - A potential HST replacement.

[route:oxford]

I keep looking at the Wrexham and Shropshire set of a 67, coaching stock and a DVT and thinking "Why isn't this being used as by other operators as supplement to HST stock?"

EWS DB Schenker could readily purchase a fleet of new carriages ("off the shelf" unpowered 17Xs with end-doors, refurbish some more DVTs and suddenly there is a fleet of 125(143)mph capable sets ready for open access or regular operators.

Of course, this is probably too straightforward as someone would have done it before now. So what are the issues?

Are the 67s too expensive/too heavy to run?

Would it be possible to halve the power of an individual 67 (thus reducing the weight not by half, but fairly considerably) and using them to top and tail? This has the obvious advantage that the train-set could continue to operate on reduced power if there was a locomotive failure as happens with HST sets. Thus creating a 67/2 subset.

Do carriages built for 100mph running need significant changes to operate at 125mph?

This is, of course, completely theoretical but it would be interesting to know how much a complete set would cost...

67/2-FOE-FO-FOB-TSO-TSO-TSO-TSO-TSO-TSOE-67/2

I'm guessing £900k for each loco and £500K for each carriage so a total of £6.3m for a complete set.

Of course, to be really good the loco would be capable of raising a pantograph and sucking in the juice when running under wires. Carriages being fully wired to run a high voltage to the opposite end of the train to maintain full topandtail power.

 

[devon_metro]

What is the need for this? The HST is perfectly adequate.

 

[route:oxford]

What is the need for this? The HST is perfectly adequate.

The HST is lovely. Shame that there aren't another couple of dozen of them to meet the desires of both regular and open access operators.

 

[37412]

Not enough 67's for starters! By the time you've purchased coaches new skips and refurbed DVT's then it would probably have been cheaper to go for a new unit design!

 

[Darandio]

Just seems like a load of pointless figures to me.

Granted, if you look at Grand Central originally, there were problems, but now the powercars have had a "good working over" they are starting to run fine.

As a backup, not possible, not enough stock and locomotives available, that is why the HST's are still there in the first place.

 

[route:oxford]

As a backup, not possible, not enough stock and locomotives available, that is why the HST's are still there in the first place.

Ok. Have GM written off this style of power car now?

 

[Pumbaa]

I'm with routexford on this one.

I've been thinking for a while now that the Voyagers could be displaced from CrossCountry to other places by 67s and Mk3s to create extra capacity. How? - Take the 90s and Mk3s from NXEA, which I believe to be 15 sets, stick a 67 and a redone DVT on each rake and you've got the answer! Replace the Mk3s with Mk2s as they are adequate (with a refurb obviously) as the line speed of the GEML is max 100mph. And then you could get a new build in.

The Voyagers should then ideally be shunted to the likes of MML to improve capacity, or give them to TPE for Scotland runs, and even to NatEx to displace another HST set!

 

[The Planner]

The trouble being that 67s really beat the crap out of the track, they have a complete speed restriction on the ECML purely for that reason (its 100mph I think). Start looking out for the new "CS" differential for 67s where its decided they are battering the track too much. Apparently drivers dont like driving them at full tilt either as it induces sea sickness !!

 

[Techniquest]

Thing is, then you've got more diesels-under-the-wires on a fully electrified run, life-expired MK2s (which is why they were removed to begin with) and there's bound to be various modifications needed to the locomotives.

No, I don't see any need for such a prospect as a HST replacement/alternative.

We need more WSMR-type operations around the place, but this is not the way to do it.

 

[Phoenix]

No, I don't see any need for such a prospect as a HST replacement/alternative.

We need more WSMR-type operations around the place, but this is not the way to do it.

Honestly though the HST's are not gonna get another makeover this MTU or VP185 job is it there is only so many times you can plonk a new engine into a 1970's design.
so an alternative is necessary but not at least for another 5-10 years but we can start planning early can't we???

 

[class 313]

Apparently drivers dont like driving them at full tilt either as it induces sea sickness !!

67s don't tilt...

 

[P156KWJ]

yeah and if they did tilt then they wouldn't be sick because part of the tilt design is to take corners at higher speeds whilst not including sickness

 

[Royston Vasey]

Whatever the merits of 67s, and bear in mind there are only two in store now according to WNXX without a new build, but either way, lack of available 110/125mph coaching stock seems to be becoming more and more of an issue. The lack of LH or HST Mk3s for creation of new sets (e.g. XC) has exposed this. If more Mk3s were available, e.g. by displacement of LH stock from the GEML, would FGW be running 9 coach formations by now for example? Would ATW still be using Mk2s in Wales?

So hypothetically, what options are there for off-the-shelf 125 mph capable coaches? For example the Irish "Mk4s" are Spanish

IE_MK4.JPG

Any others?

What would imported coaches' compatibility be, for example with the many Cl 90s in store?

Or are TGV/ICE/Pendolino/ style units all we are likely to see in future?

 

[87015]

67s don't tilt...

Doesn't mean they won't "roll" around at high speed in the cab, although I've no idea how they ride. A lot of weight on four axles though may play a part.

 

[route:oxford]

The trouble being that 67s really beat the crap out of the track, they have a complete speed restriction on the ECML purely for that reason (its 100mph I think). Start looking out for the new "CS" differential for 67s where its decided they are battering the track too much. Apparently drivers dont like driving them at full tilt either as it induces sea sickness !!

Would reducing the mass of the 67 not help?

Creating a subset 67/2 to work in pairs in top&tail mode with the same or marginally higher total power output when operating together but only approximately half the individual capacity thus a significantly lower weight.

 

[EE Type 3]

Would reducing the mass of the 67 not help?

Creating a subset 67/2 to work in pairs in top&tail mode with the same or marginally higher total power output when operating together but only approximately half the individual capacity thus a significantly lower weight.

How could you reduce the weight? What would you take out? :???:

I took a photo a while back which looks like an interesting new multiple unit using the 67 and mark 3 as a base

http://daviddawson.fotopic.net/p52177381.html

 

[Juniper Driver]

How could you reduce the weight? What would you take out?

The engine?:-?

 

[EE Type 3]

How could you reduce the weight? What would you take out?

The engine?:-?

Ah, a wind powered train. Brilliant

 

[class 313]

Well, 67s can't operate on a full tank, so install a smaller one

 

[1D53]

Well, 67s can't operate on a full tank, so install a smaller one

They can, they just can't do 125. Why would you make a train that couldn't move at all with a full tank?!

 

[class 313]

They can, they just can't do 125. Why would you make a train that couldn't move at all with a full tank?!

That's what I meant, my bad

 

[route:oxford]

How could you reduce the weight? What would you take out? :???:

Well, if the manfacturers were building the 67/2 in order to split the power of a single 67/0 over 2 locomotives to work together at each end of the set (just like the HST). Surely the diesel engine to deliver say 2000hp would weigh in a bit less than an engine that delivers 3200hp?

Likewise the alternators wouldn't be as powerful. So less heavy too.

Or is this an engineering impossibility?

 

[devon_metro]

It doesn't make economical sense, thus won't happen

 

[Royston Vasey]

Think what is being proposed is a good idea in principle but there are a lot of assumptions involved. If there were enough 67s, if there were enough coaches, if easy mods could be made to reduce weight, etc etc.

At the same time the HST2 is being developed, there are "off the shelf" Intercity trains available from a variety of manufacturers in Europe. And these are a real step forward technically from a locomotive and some 1970s coaches.

However, if we were in the situation that a surplus of Mk3s and DVTs were becoming available, for example if the GEML moved to intercity EMUs for whatever reason next week, then a high speed diesel loco which was more flexible than the 67 (and compatible with the DVTs) would seem an ideal solution, for a relatively low cost and accessible solution for open access/other operators.

Maybe one day (hypothetically!!) the ECML will have HST2, GEML will have cascaded 225s and the Mk3s will be available, but by then the Mk3s will be 40+ years old, and in any case there will probably be surplus HSTs by then, which may still have some life in them...

In short, in principle not a bad idea, but IMHO the circumstances now and in future will almost certainly rule it out...

 

[Darandio]

Definetely not economical to do this. If they were to do something similar, other alternatives would surely be looked at first.

1) Those Chinese Polaris things, a cheap option.
2) More vomiters.

And maybe:-

3) Units put into store from the next cascade. Imagine an 8 car 142, possibly with new turbodiesel engines to give a speed of 100mph? Then again maybe not.

 

[djw1981]

Why not just buy a new build loco.....which is dfT's preferred option with the IEP.

 

[The Planner]

67s don't tilt...

You know what I meant....

 

[EE Type 3]

You know what I meant....

But what else would you mean when you say 'full tilt'?

And IIRC 67s have always been restricted to 100mph, they were tested at 125mph but never passed for it. Most of them are restricted to 90mph due to the low brake force when running at higher speeds.

 

[TheSlash]

But what else would you mean when you say 'full tilt'?

Full power and top speed. Also know as flat chat

One simple reason. If the loco fails, you have 500tons of dead weight, where as Voyagers/Meridians can operate with 50% of the engines switched out.

Also as previously stated, 67's are track smashers and we don't have the resources within the infrastructure industry to keep up with them.

In todays commercial industry, i can't see room for the DVT, unless they begin booking regular parcel traffic.

 

[The Planner]

But what else would you mean when you say 'full tilt'?

And IIRC 67s have always been restricted to 100mph, they were tested at 125mph but never passed for it. Most of them are restricted to 90mph due to the low brake force when running at higher speeds.

Im pretty sure that they can run at 125 on the Great Western and the WSMR ones are allowed to run at 100 on the WCML section between Stechford and Coventry. The 67 speed limits only apply when pulling 3 or less Mk I, II coaches or Mk III sleeper coaches and the EWS exec. train has a dispensation from that too IIRC. ATW have been knobbled by that rule with their top and tailed 57s on the Holyhead Cardiff runs as they are using Mk IIs.