My idea: would a class 67 conversion project be viable?

[PYROOGOBBO]

Sorry if there has been a thread already for it, but i've seen it mentioned a few times and maybe it should have its own thread

i've seen people saying they should convert class 67's (into like class 69's or class 77's or such) like how the 57's were made from old 47's , and it does sound kinda cool, but would it be viable?

i mean it could save costs from having to make a whole new body and that

 

[PHILIPE]

Sorry if there has been a thread already for it, but i've seen it mentioned a few times and maybe it should have its own thread

i've seen people saying they should convert class 67's (into like class 69's or class 77's or such) like how the 57's were made from old 47's , and it does sound kinda cool, but would it be viable?

i mean it could save costs from having to make a whole new body and that

What's the point ?

 

[Far north 37]

Sorry if there has been a thread already for it, but i've seen it mentioned a few times and maybe it should have its own thread

i've seen people saying they should convert class 67's (into like class 69's or class 77's or such) like how the 57's were made from old 47's , and it does sound kinda cool, but would it be viable?

i mean it could save costs from having to make a whole new body and that

im not sure what they would be converted to and what for there not designed for heavy freight and the class 68 seems to have taken over a lot of the work they are suitable for.

also i dont see the point in converting them as the do what they do already what would they need to be converted into.

 

[fgwrich]

What's the point ?

I'm afraid I agree with you. You'd have to convert a lot to make them ideally as useful or as good as a 68 - Better tractive effort, better bodywork, better cabs, etc. Their best bet would be a new Engine / Drivesystem from CAT but it would depend on how much DB would want to invest in them. Possibly one benefit they could have received had they remained leased from Angel.

 

[cj_1985]

I would have thought that the best thing to do with the 67s... (if anything was to be done) or at least a fair number of them, would be to re gear them for 100 or 110mph operation as well as replace the bogies with suitable CoCo bogies... which would , I assume, make them more suitable for freight use. perhaps with the same type as fitted to the Euro 3000/4000

Whether that could be done without making too many changes, and within a reasonable price range is anyones guess

 

[PHILIPE]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. There's always the risk of any conversions going pear shaped and resulting in a worse performance.

 

[Far north 37]

I would have thought that the best thing to do with the 67s... (if anything was to be done) or at least a fair number of them, would be to re gear them for 100 or 110mph operation as well as replace the bogies with suitable CoCo bogies... which would , I assume, make them more suitable for freight use. perhaps with the same type as fitted to the Euro 3000/4000

Whether that could be done without making too many changes, and within a reasonable price range is anyones guess

changing them to co-co bogies would probably mean a major overhaul of there electrical systems and such like with db having 66s regulary in store i doubt they would be keen unless another operator managed to prise more out of them and was willing to invest in such a scheme

 

[SpacePhoenix]

With the 68s having taken a lot of their work, do they have a future apart from long term storage and maybe even scrapping?

 

[fowler9]

Who/what were they originally built for? They seem to have rather limited usage. What I mean is it was a relatively limited production run. This has happened before but not in an age when there is not much for them to do.

 

[Far north 37]

Who/what were they originally built for? They seem to have rather limited usage. What I mean is it was a relatively limited production run. This has happened before but not in an age when there is not much for them to do.

they were originally built for ews to replace the class 47s on the royal mail trains hence why they were built more to passenger loco spec but not long after they were built all mail traffic was lost to road and air so they ended up in limbo like they still are now

 

[fowler9]

they were originally built for ews to replace the class 47s on the royal mail trains hence why they were built more to passenger loco spec but not long after they were built all mail traffic was lost to road and air so they ended up in limbo like they still are now

Cheers mate. That was a bit shortsighted. A lot of the air traffic was lost very shortly afterwards to. I'm sure I read a good few years ago that Liverpool Airport used to be the busiest night mail airport in the country. That has pretty much died off to. Forgive me if I am wrong.

 

[fgwrich]

Cheers mate. That was a bit shortsighted. A lot of the air traffic was lost very shortly afterwards to. I'm sure I read a good few years ago that Liverpool Airport used to be the busiest night mail airport in the country. That has pretty much died off to. Forgive me if I am wrong.

The problem at the end of the day - as with this thread and EWS loosing the mail Traffic is Money. EWS became too Greedy and effectively outpriced themselves, while the Royal Mail was on the verge of cutting things back. So effectively they priced themselves out of the market and managed to lose about 90% of the work for the 67s in the process. Since losing Chiltern to DRS (which ****ed DB themselves off!) and the Caley Sleeper to GBRf, their work has dwindled ever since to the odd railtour, ATW job or occasional stand-in LCHS.

 

[CosherB]

With the 68s having taken a lot of their work, do they have a future apart from long term storage and maybe even scrapping?

There are 8 67s currently showing as 'stored'. That's 22 in active use.

Another of your wibble moments perchance? You've already tried to export them to an unknown user abroad already! Come on, the 67s are the only decent long term, diesel, ETS-capable, 3,000+hp mixed-use loco in the UK, apart from the 68. Why on earth would DBC scrap them? I accept they aren't perfect, but there is plenty of mileage left in them. They're only 17 years old for heaven's sake!

I too would propose to re-gear them to 100mph top speed, assuming that this would give performance/acceleration benefits. Without knowing if such an outcome is possible, it's a bit of a shot in the dark from me.

I daresay, in the unlikely event DBC were to put any more 67s up for sale/lease in the near future, there would be a queue at the door of Stella Horrocks of interested parties.

Less of the hyperbole please.

 

[DarloRich]

this thread seems a bit wibbletastic - what would be the point of the conversion? What extra business would it generate? It seems costly and silly.

The problem at the end of the day - as with this thread and EWS loosing the mail Traffic is Money. EWS became too Greedy and effectively outpriced themselves, while the Royal Mail was on the verge of cutting things back. So effectively they priced themselves out of the market

that isnt the only reason the mail traffic was lost to the railway

 

[InOban]

Don't they drink fuel if used at full power? Not economic for hauling heavy freight.

 

[Spartacus]

this thread seems a bit wibbletastic - what would be the point of the conversion? What extra business would it generate? It seems costly and silly.



that isnt the only reason the mail traffic was lost to the railway

Besides the new 67s bumping up the price of mail trains further, RM had legitimate concerns about reliability, mostly that if one mail train was delayed a whole lot more mail was delayed than if one lorry was delayed, with rather a lot more that the RM could do about the lorry than the train.

Moving to new 'out of town' distribution hubs which was ongoing before the 67s were ordered from central ones, typically very close to railway stations also meant that much of the mail would have to travel a decent distance by road anyway: that mail might as well stay in the lorries for the whole journey.

Mail by rail was always heading for a big slump, not only did the 67s come at just the wrong time but they probably contributed a bit to it with their increased track access charges, resulting the in total loss for a short while.

 

[t_star2001uk]

So,to get back on topic, a few issues that i could see off the top of my head.

1. Fitting CO-CO bogies. The bogie pivot point would have to be moved back.
2. The extended bogie would then intrude into the space previously occupied by the fuel tank and battery box.
3. Although using a CO-CO bogie may reduce the axle weight, the overall weight of the already heavy loco would increase.

 

[fgwrich]

this thread seems a bit wibbletastic - what would be the point of the conversion? What extra business would it generate? It seems costly and silly.



that isnt the only reason the mail traffic was lost to the railway

True, I was half asleep when I wrote that brief summary.

Don't they drink fuel if used at full power? Not economic for hauling heavy freight.

That is another reason - The fuel issue was another of the reasons why Chiltern opted to drop them over the 68s, and they are not good locos for freight jobs as many DBS drivers will openly testify.

Like I said above really, aside from DBS doing much of the work in house, they're best bet would be a thorough top end overhaul and replacement of the engine with a new one from CAT (EMDs successor). I would go in part some way to making these leaky and unreliable tubs somewhat better again.

 

[ash39]

There are 8 67s currently showing as 'stored'. That's 22 in active use.

Another of your wibble moments perchance? You've already tried to export them to an unknown user abroad already! Come on, the 67s are the only decent long term, diesel, ETS-capable, 3,000+hp mixed-use loco in the UK, apart from the 68. Why on earth would DBC scrap them? I accept they aren't perfect, but there is plenty of mileage left in them. They're only 17 years old for heaven's sake!

I too would propose to re-gear them to 100mph top speed, assuming that this would give performance/acceleration benefits. Without knowing if such an outcome is possible, it's a bit of a shot in the dark from me.

I daresay, in the unlikely event DBC were to put any more 67s up for sale/lease in the near future, there would be a queue at the door of Stella Horrocks of interested parties.

Less of the hyperbole please.

That's definitely a glass half full analysis of the current Class 67 situation. For what it's worth, I'm a fan of them - relatively small class with a varied and troubled history. However, saying there are only 8 stored is only half the story.

Of the 22 that are 'active', some of them are doing very little work. I know, as an example, 67002 has been a shunter at Mossend for months! 67007 is doing similar duties at Tyne Yard.

5 of them are on Virgin East Coast thunderbird duties, a contract which will end in the next few years with the Hitachi units take over. Likewise, unless someone comes up with the money to make the ATW mk3's PRM compliant, the 3 locos for that contract (2 active, 1 standby) will also be redundant.

It does not look good for the future. 67019 has been stored outside at Toton for a couple of years now, with various parts missing from the front end. Unless a desperate TOC takes a punt on them hauling redundant mk4's on unelectrified lines in the next few years, I can't see them having a long term future in this country, and some may have already turned their last wheel in service.

If you think that's extreme for a 15 year old loco, look at some of the Class 90's at Crewe. The longest stored examples will have been a similar age when they got put in to store.

 

[CosherB]

So,to get back on topic, a few issues that i could see off the top of my head.

1. Fitting CO-CO bogies. The bogie pivot point would have to be moved back.
2. The extended bogie would then intrude into the space previously occupied by the fuel tank and battery box.
3. Although using a CO-CO bogie may reduce the axle weight, the overall weight of the already heavy loco would increase.

I wouldn't fret too much about changing bogies. It isn't going to happen.

 

[43096]

Like I said above really, aside from DBS doing much of the work in house, they're best bet would be a thorough top end overhaul and replacement of the engine with a new one from CAT (EMDs successor). I would go in part some way to making these leaky and unreliable tubs somewhat better again.

What work are you overhauling them for? Or is this just more trainspotter pie-in-the-sky stuff that doesn't stand up to even the barest business scrutiny?

Oh and what do you mean by "top end overhaul"? I've always understood that to be a "light" engine overhaul, but can't be that as you propose replacing the engine.

 

[t_star2001uk]

I wouldn't fret too much about changing bogies. It isn't going to happen.

I know..... was just feeding the wibble

 

[CosherB]

If you can't beat them, join them ......

How about a future for the 67s with LHCS? Rake of Mk4s, 67 at one end, Class 19 at the other .....

 

[168lover]

If you can't beat them, join them ......

How about a future for the 67s with LHCS? Rake of Mk4s, 67 at one end, Class 19 at the other .....

Not MK4s but 442s

 

[t_star2001uk]

Not MK4s but 442s

Be a bit quiet about the 442s. They are alleged to be used in the first manned mission to Mars. With the traction packages upgraded to rocket power....

 

[gingertom]

If fuel economy was a real issue then I'm sure the owners would investigate whether a replacement from MTU, Cat, Cummins or any of the others would make economic sense.

As for their use, does anyone know if these machines have ever run at 125mph, other than on acceptance testing? If they are truly capable of this speed then there must be opportunities for them: a pseudo-HST top and tail with 8 or 9 Mk3 or Mk4 coaches; or replace the DVT with a 67 on a short-formed Mk4 rake with a 91, so it can operate short distances away from the wires?

 

[CosherB]

If fuel economy was a real issue then I'm sure the owners would investigate whether a replacement from MTU, Cat, Cummins or any of the others would make economic sense.

As for their use, does anyone know if these machines have ever run at 125mph, other than on acceptance testing? If they are truly capable of this speed then there must be opportunities for them: a pseudo-HST top and tail with 8 or 9 Mk3 or Mk4 coaches; or replace the DVT with a 67 on a short-formed Mk4 rake with a 91, so it can operate short distances away from the wires?

Welcome to the forum!

I think it's fair to say that these kind of ideas have been 'done to death' on here before and all ruled out as impractical/technically challenging/financially ruinous.

 

[gingertom]

it is equally financially ruinous to have assets in storage depreciating when TOCs need stock to relieve overcrowding.

 

[D365]

it is equally financially ruinous to have assets in storage depreciating when TOCs need stock to relieve overcrowding.

DB/EWS aren't exactly strangers to that.

And the shortage is in coaching stock, not locomotive power.

 

[59CosG95]

DB/EWS aren't exactly strangers to that.

And the shortage is in coaching stock, not locomotive power.

DB/EWS do have a set of Mk2s which I believe are languishing in Mossend at the moment; IIRC they spent a few years at Bescot too. I'm sure they could take those, the seated coaches on the Cally Sleeper (due to come off-lease soon), or potentially the ex-AGA Mk3s and use them for spot-hire work.

But enough wibble, back to the equally wibbly, if perhaps inventive, 67 conversion idea. Would de-rating/limiting the engine do any good? They could perhaps become more 68-like if their top speed was capped at 100mph.