Class 60 - Brilliant but Flawed 

Surely someone who is incapable of judging the height of a door vs their skeleton should not be allowed in the cab of a locomotive without their carer.

@@derektaylor2941 Very true, although in my defence it was around 2am and totally unlit in the cab!!!

@@mjc8281someone who is unsure of how to use a light switch shouldn't.... Joking aside, my post came across as aggressive. It was actually meant in a lighthearted "Leave my bloody class 60s alone." I worked on them when new as an apprentice. They are the very last proper locomotive built for UK use, as far as I am concerned. I do apologise though, sarcasm and humour doesn't transmit well on youtube.

@@derektaylor2941 No apology necessary, I guess it meant less to me because I never operated or trained in it and was gone within 6 months of its introduction.. Honestly never saw many around, I guess this video explains why!

Class 66 had door problems , drivers trapping fingers in them , had to modify them , even part of EWS/ Db driver training was how to get in / out a class 66 !

This country does lead the fo

I guess the "Unreliability" tag goes to all the other industries that have been sold off where we don't manufacture anymore.

That's what happens when you privatise everything.

@@shogun2215 But the locos we bought were built by private companies ? So what do you mean?

I suspect GBRF and DCR will be lining up for the locos. One's which can be returned to mainline will be, and the loco's rotting will be stripped of all working components. The scrap train to Booths of Rotherham might not look as bad that way.

​@johnclarke2997 That's if DBC want to sell them, they might see it as selling to competition and shooting themselves in the foot, but they've got a long history messing things up though so you never know.

I can see it all ending badly, DBC have lost a huge amount of work over the last 5/6 years and replacing the 60's with regeared 66's is not going to change anything, they will just continue losing more work.

Yes know about the re-gearing , it will have more torque but won't be able to use it due to the primitive super series traction control , nothing puts the power down to the rail as good as class 60 wheel creep Think the death of the class 60 is not really the loco itself but the demise of Mirrlees also the the 66 is not without its faults , Parking brake , Alt Slip-rings to name but a few but less than a class 60 had

Much more reliable though. No business can operate effectively if its machinery is not reliable. ​@@nounoufriend1442

The higher speed of the 37 and better route availability has meant that the 37 can fit in paths easier. In the end, a large fleet will always be favoured over a small one and although not as strong, the 66 is faster. The demise of coal meant that fewer locos were needed . Pity though the 60 looked mint in triple grey and sounds better than the ying yings.

Reality: You can't beat a Tractor. BR Management: but! but! Its old and- Reality: _You can't beat a Tractor._

I know which one I'd go for on a cold winters night, the 60 every time. The next loco that BR was set to build would have been a mid range machine to replace 37s and alike, the 60s got rid of the need for expensive double heading on heavy freight workings. Coaching stock was still in favour at that time so it could have been something around 2500 hp with top speed of around 100 / 110 mph.

It’s because the Class 38 was cancelled in favour of the Class 60; that is why the Class 37s have lasted this long.

To use the old BR phrase, Class Extinct.

thats why i like the 60s they have quiet a serious stern look

The 60's looked very futuristic, well they still do in my opinion. I love the smooth slab sided design.

But politics always beats science, engineering, morals, Common Sense . . . Shall I go on?

Probably the most fuel guzzling too

the 92 bodyshell is based on the 60.

It's nice hearing them pass (and watching), our house backs onto the railway line in Johnston, a few miles from Robeston ... One hell of a sound!

It was well-known at the time just how unreliable they were and that they had so many warranty claims mounting up, with appalling reliability. It kept on coming up in the railway press at the time.

@@EE12CSVTah, the railway press... Sorry, but teething problems from a brand new class is very different to what you enthusiasts present. In fact, I am utterly sick of rail, bus, aircraft and ship enthusiasts and their bloody opinions.

@@derektaylor2941 You mean like the detailed reports in Modern Railways at the time? It was very well reported, as well as the casualty figures. Teething problems of 100,000 faults over the whole class, some doing no more than 1000 miles of running in a year. That's all rather more than 'teething troubles' of the sort that the 59 and 66 didn't suffer. It does sound like you're defensive of what Brush threw together and struggled to get to work satisfactorily. And why EMD cleaned up.

@@EE12CSVTwell I'm sure a bunch of anoraks know more than British Rail management did then. It's the same in the industry I'm in now- all the autistic, anorak wearing in-cels know better than we do.

@@derektaylor2941 Ah, the i-word. It looks like I've hit a nerve. I remember quite clearly watching the farce unfold, the lines of 60s being sent back to Brush. I also remember having a discussion with a Brush E+Engineer in 1991 about it, and he wasn't best pleased with the project. Software faults, axle boxes, the circular bearing pads, the engine....

Whereas the Swiss showed you how it was done... 😜🤣

How did the Swiss show the Americans anything? America still has the best freight rail system in the world and more powerful diesel locomotives than the Europeans

True but the Swiss do have some powerful electric trains for their iron ore and gradients, think he is on about them. would love to see them american locos doing the austrailia iron ore run too!@@andrewreynolds4949

Shame the US can't show Russia and China how its done, maybe because they have the guts to tell the USA where to go!

@@EwanGVids Russia doesn't have much to brag about, their indigenous rail equipment manufacturing industry cratered after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Meanwhile China is driving itself into bankruptcy overbuilding high speed networks with a rather poor safety record

66's are far more reliable and the best locos to run on UK railways . Worked on class 56's 59's, class 60's and 66 from brand new. Did nearly 50 years in the industry. Best to work on were the 47's, loved the 37's and 08's. Favourite loco has to be the Westerns.

You can have both. The 9F steam locomotive was. We've ended up going backwards instead of forwards.

2 lads and Warrington positively asked a driver getting off the log train did he like the 70s. Nah don't like them. these have the better engine but the 60s have got more pulling power. They have a wheel creep control system that works from 0mph instead of 5 or 8 ect. every axle is individually controlled to wheel slip slightly rather than one axle spins too much and all are powered back. Tractive effort is a guide calculated from HP, gearing and wheel diameter. Wheel creep control can give a 1/3 to a 1/2 more pulling power.

​@alstonofalltrades3142 I've seen similar comments online from Colas divers, most said the 60 edged it regarding traction control, mental to think that considering the 60's are 20 years older than the 70's

Working a 60 on a Liverpool to Cottam 36 HAA we were unexpectedly stopped at Collyhurst Street on the climb out of Manchester Victoria. The signalman was about to summon a banker but I decided to try to restart alone. The loco chugged its way up the remainder of the bank passing Miles Platting at 8 mph

@@philipgreaves5425 Ive seen them climb up out of liverpool docks on their own and in the wet. Seen 60s bank 60s and get them up in half the time. There was alot of talk for a year that the fleet would be all 60s to take the biomass up Miles Platting instead of a massive detour around south cheshire. Got the truth a while back though off a GBRF driver. Oh the 60s can do it but we ran a test and the couplings were at their limit.

The radar is crucial the the power control on class 60 think lot of initial power problem's were due to the software though , then there was suspension issues (o rings) sandbox bolts . Rode them during initial trials , great loco when all ok quite , ride nice , we had on light engine back from Leeds up to nearly 80 mph on ECML ( before limited to 60 mph and Qtron ) . Interesting about the deep windscreen must be an issue as lots of drivers put bag in gap between desk and windscreen , now I know why . Even though older the traction control is far better than a 66 , often got failed with power issues , when all the driver needed to do was isolate auto sand (switch is wrongly labelled imo ) as it isolates most of wheel creep and will get you back home

Their hours are surely lower than the 66s though. The EMD 710 is basically a more reliable unit as many US EMDs show.

@domhnallmorris oh yeah, true. Again another reason to bring back the 60

They are due a major overhaul every 20,000 hours. The super 60 programme finally gave them this and more from vandalism, rust, ect. I hope I'm wrong but I don't think they will get a 2nd overhaul for a third lease of life.

Saw one leaving lynemouth this morning, quite a distinctive noise but not a patch of the class 56 spool up

​@@simonn2045I normally dont play favourites but the 60 is mine. Cant argue with the 56 thrash though. Every now and then they double head the log train to chirk. Can hear them for ages after they've passed.😂😂

I hear and see the "Class 60's are unreliable" all the time but as you say no one ever states why.

I've noticed the same face to face or online. Theyre unreliable but no one knows their rating. I found a book on the class 60 by Edward Gleed in Liverpool library. He said after the 59 showed 95% was possible the contract for the 60 had to match it. Im a fan of the 60 because of how she shines at heavy loads up an incline in the wet and with coal dust on the rails. But the 59's and 66s 98-99% reliability is awesome. They took their already thashed out loco design and just made small alterations and sold them round the world. Simple to diagnose and spare parts galore.

And 37s some 60 years later. Age has little bearing on a great design.

It’s because the Class 38 was cancelled in favour of the Class 60; that is why the Class 37s have lasted this long.

the 58s, now that was tragic.

The 60's are in this state due to EWS, they purposely ran them into the ground so they could bring in their cheap crappy 66's. The 60's are brilliant if maintained properly. But like anything, if you don't maintain it properly it won't work properly.

Hardly a fair comparison, think you will find the 60s have slightly less horsepower than a 59 but they develop a higher tractive effort (pull ) from a standing start due to better control of how the motors and suspension work to let it put the power down to the rail. The best description of it all might be that through the use of very clever electricery it stretches the envelope of what is really possible to achieve . With loco's it all comes down to tractive effort, horsepower is not a direct indicator of how much it can "start" or pull.

Incase he doesnt make a video, one of them had a fate similar to this one. m.ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-OvyIrsZ7Zhs.html

Oh dear, someone really is bitter. The 59 was and is a fat superior product that Railfreight managers wanted to get plenty of their own, and showed just how embarrassingly bad the BREL crap really was. You've rose tinted spectacles when it comes to the 60. They weren't rushed into production, it had been on the cards for years and Brush had a detailed design since a long time. They still couldn't get it to behave long after introduction and I imagine Railfreight management resented being lumbered with it while they cast their eyes enviously at Yeoman and ARC. Yeoman just wanted something that worked. BR couldn't supply it, so after years of experience with their EMD yard switcher, they went to EMD for a heavy haul loco because British industry couldn't build anything remotely suitable, and even the dedicated BR fleet of 'quality British workmanship' kept on keeling over. The British loco industry brought all this in itself through complacency and not examining international competitors' products closely enough or at all.

Not bitter, just championing home grown products, unlike yourself but that's only to be expected these days,

@@31144 What you're clearly doing here is championing home grown products so bad that their customers didn't want, and in the case of Railfreight had imposed on them against their will, when they wanted to buy UK-built Class 59 but had to make do with the Brush and Mirrlees junk they were given. I'm assuming you watched the video about how appallingly unreliable the 60s were?

Of course they were flawed! Overpowered means nothing if its not reliable. The tragedy is we allowed the fantastic modular 58s 'Bones' to fall by the wayside, all because of the 59/60/66 contract/construction debacle.

@@abloogywoogywoo Hardly. The radiator fiasco, and they slipped like crazy on anything other than completely dry rail.

plenty 58s that were stored in france including 58001 are scrapped now

The 58's and 60's were ran into the ground on purpose so they could bring in the 66's

I very much doubt it. Sooner or later BR would've thrown in the towel.

not really, we on the maintenance side were getting hammered trying to keep worn out 56's running, then the class 60's came, they needed lots of tlc. The class 66's were around 20% more reliable. Those units have now done more than a million miles each. Its simple, cost and reliability and keeping the customer happy is the key. The class 60's struggled to do that for various reasons.

I don't think that was the main reason for larger numbers, it might have been more of we have only got one chance to flood the European market so fill ya boots while you can. A shrood move by EMD at that time to take out all European building to safeguard their future market, thankfully the power unit design has reached the end of the development route so there shouldn't be any more built. They tried a few tweaks here and there with 66 / 9s ( low emission version ) but it couldn't reach future EU emission requirements . Anything coming in the future will probably be CAT. Powered.

It's likely the 66 would've appeared much sooner in that case

At Wensleydale

We've had continuously welded rail here since the 1930s in places, pal. The vast majority of our lines are CWR. Only a tiny amount is still jointed.

Because the UK now is just a joke. Not just trains that we have stopped manufacturing but a loads of other stuff too. A lot of our industry has been sold off, defunct and moved abroad.

spot on, they saved rail freight in effect. I did 50 years in the industry

Apparently there where plans in the pipeline for a standard 2 8 2 something between a 9F and a Britannia possibly with caprotti valves to use what had been learned from the standard class 5s and Duke of Gloucester ,not sure if it would have gone as far as oil fired as coal was the fuel of choice at the time. One was built in more recent times as a 5 inch gauge live steam model ( using standard valve gear ) and it went on to win IMLEC three years consecutively, so there was some proof of concept . We can only dream of what might have been

Are you serious?

@@domhnallmorris Lead to believe it was given serious thought at the time but lots of plans where made and changed back then so it might have happened if steam had continued on, it was the government of the day that went for modernizing the railways with the move over towards diesels so who knows what could have come about. Look how they pick and choose today, back then somebody was looking forward to what might be required, now we can waist billions looking and dreaming about things like HS2 and cancel the plan overnight.

@@moelSiabod14334 what is your source?

@@domhnallmorris In the 1950s a steam locomotive cost about a fifth of that of a diesel electric locomotive of the same power; given a decent sized production run, this advantage is almost certainly better today. The steam locomotive can be expected to last 60 years. The additional capital cost of your diesel is quickly won back in lower running costs and better availability, but if it is out of service due to defects or lack of work, then the interest charges rack up with no income to compensate. If expensive remedial action is needed, or the locomotives have a short life, then they were a bad investment. Rail traffic is highly variable due to daily and seasonal peaks, as well as the economic cycle. Expensive machines need to be kept running all the time so as to cover their capital costs. The less efficient but inexpensive machine will be better value if it is going to be laid up for long periods due to lack of work. This is a very old issue. When the first diesels arrived, operators were delighted with the high availability of some of the better types But when the fleets were all diesel, there was not enough work for all of them. The present philosophy is to avoid having spare capacity as it is too expensive. We then end up with complex fares and traffic being priced off.

I'm curious about that too. Hope a second vid is a possibility to cover those and other issues addressed also.

DB didn't modify anything on the 60 they only built back to the original speck, some bits were actually worse / cheaper and they came back to bite. The only mods they have had in more recent time's are a more up to date turbo and an electrical fuel control ( govner ) the need for either being accountant led rather than engineering nesserties, both items worked well but required more frequent tlc than they would pay for.

Heard you can't mate the Cl 60 alternator to the GM engine , fitting the GM engine and alternator would mean losing the superior 60 traction control and downgrading to cl 66 super series system . Yes 60 had problems , camshaft , governor , electronics racks but recon most of electrics are robust , alternators , field convertors , rectifiers , motors are all good . Just replace electronic racks with something up to date , main and speed micro's are 80's tech ! (6800 cpu ) TBO the rebuilt 60's are getting there ( got rid of governor with new actuator now) . We had loads of issues with governors " Lvdt diode pack failing " only to get governor returned from woodward with same fault ! only to find overhaul spec from Toton didn't inc Lvdt (wasn't you lol ) . Like you I worked on them from introduction , rode them on acceptance trials with brush , great loco's just need magic touch from Mr B from Toton

​@@nounoufriend1442 Most issues with 60s tended to be related to things not being maintained often enough,fuel strainers and filters were to small and could have been 4x bigger,slipping cover should have been see through to allow easier checking of brushes ,govner mod should have been done from day one like Mirrlees offered, tappet adjusters should have been hydraulic,fuel transfer pump and lube oil pump should have been in the engine room.

@abod14334 Could have done with larger fuel filter strainer and better fuel press regulator , Mirrllees guy told us they didn't need governor as they had electronic control for fuel rack on other Mb 275 engines . BR insisted on governor and they were pig to change you had manhandle over the Alternator before hole was cut in roof . Them alternator slipring brushes were bit awkward I use to take cowl off , tappets were a pain as rocker gear was heavy I use hang crane on gear to measure clearance , I reckon loose tappets caused cam follower issues . We never got many issues with lub oil prime pump but fuel transfer pump brushes often stuck I forgot about other issue them awful fuel HP pipes breaking and sometimes pipe fitting sheared off HP pump Still liked them though did many miles riding dodgy one's never had one fail on me (don't call 28 mph max massively surging amps on ECML a fail ) . Also that auto sand iso switch , why did know one tell drivers that will got you going again with 90% of power faults !!

@@moelSiabod14334 Had hauled to Immingham from Tees yard , failed gen fault loss of power , it was switched in slow speed FFS , still we had 66's loss of power " not come out of brake screen !

@@nounoufriend1442 main reason for moving lube oil priming pump and fuel pump would have been simpler by not having to go through the bulkhead keeping any leakage in the oily bit, fuel pump could have gone inlet side, oil pump could have gone exhaust side, believe that's how they where on the test-bed 37/9 ' s. At least then if there was any leaks they would be off the floor plates and drip into the bedplate, it might have left a bit more room around the free end to play with the water pump but we can only dream of more space to get things out when needed, it needed another 6" in there really but now we can only dream of what could and should have been. The vent above the govner was a bit of waste and only drew the hot air towards the unit rather than away from it, the modded version was better but more could have been done.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_60

Believe it comes down to some legal clause to do with being ex BR assets , they can not be disposed of they have to be sold on for further use in the industry.

Someone else said FOCs always want to keep around stored locos. If they get a sudden upturn in customers they can get hauling fast. Whereas new locos take time in a que to order and then be delivered, then lots of testing here before they are ready to haul. Sounds reasonable to me if its true. Internet snd opinions and all😂

@@alstonofalltrades3142 If that was the case you would think they might at least keep them whole and at least runnable to some degree, they couldn't shoot the 60s fast enough as they will outperform the 66 anyday of the week, also they had to "justify"and "pay for " the 250 new locos that where arriving fast and furious from the US. Why replace something you already own with something inferior that you can lease ?

@@moelSiabod14334 EMDs are cheaper to run from a service point of view. Not fuel consumption though! High availability as servicing them is faster and less often and to boot you can neglect servicing them if you want. While out there they are 99% reliable so less headaches for ROCs. They can do most heavy haul jobs in the UK. EMD has been making awesome locos for a long time and led the way. They are the ones who got started with inventing wheel creep control. There super series creep control gives a 20-40% boost in tractive effort. They invented radial steering trucks which the 66 has unlike the 59 or 60. This gives 10% more grip on curves, can go on tighter tracks that only BoBos can and it reduces track wear and tear which means cheaper track access. The manual for parts and how it works and diagnose for a 66 is 500 pages long whereas the 60 is 5000. Easier & cheaper for staff training in depots. Some 60 parts are not available off the shelf so its cannabalize off another 60 or payout for a custom build or custom refurb. Where as EMD have been taking their very thrashed out loco design and altering them as little as possible with many of the same parts to sell around the world which means all you could need for spare parts to keep locos running. Im a fan of the 60 its my fave loco it had to meet its 95% reliability rating in its contract and i could go on even more about how its wheel creep control is excellent if you want. But she needed her planned major overhaul at 20,000 hours and was lined up instead. Until DB re figured out that when it comes to hauling heavy loads up steep inclines with wet, icy railheads or climbing out of coal quarries with coal dust tracked up the line also in the wet. Well she can do it cheaper and more reliable than sending a 59 or 66 to get stuck and sit there jamming the line waiting for a banker to be sent over!

I thought that but it turns out it's an under estimate!

Thought so myself was a strange advert. Think it's still on here had a good number of views to be fair!!

@@philipbray880 It's a valid slogan. Ben Nevis is 50 megatons. Most heavy freight hauls about 2400 tons but a third of that is the wagon weight. so say 1600 tons per trip. 50,000,000 / 1600 is 31250 trips. there are or were.. 100 class 60s so 312.5 trips per loco. Some trips are short others are long, they could get Ben Nevis moved in about a year. A lot of guesstimating I know! What is the size of our averages mountains in the UK or the smaller ones. How many mountains have the 66s moved. Or all them years BR did double heading with several different locos.

@alstonofalltrades3142 yeah I know what you mean, still remember seeing mixed loco formations as a kid. Some doing freight some doing passenger rail services during the BR era. Don't think a class 66 has moved a mountain yet all be taking a solid year or more.

Years ago railways subsidies were 6x BR era.last I checked they are 9x. BR finally got tilting trains to work on older curvy track but the negging press hammered it to death and patents were sold off. I can't think of another train that went into a museum as fast and young as what the APT-E did... Britain gave the world railways. Trains started derailing due to hunting oscilation around the 130mph mark. The Japanese with Tadashi Matsudaira's were the first to make a breakthough on this but not by much. Working for BR Alan Wickens and his team led the most detailed study of wheel rail dynamics ever done. Once finished they could run trains on tracks at ANY speed without derailment.Now limiting factors for train speed would be things like traction motor power. steel strength, increased replacement of components the same way a boy racer keeps paying out if going faster. BR took this study and published it to the world for free..! Britain gave the world railways and British Railways gave the world high speed railways.

Soviet Romania perhaps

Foster Yeoman to BR: the locos you give us for our trains are useless BR: OK, we'll give you this dedicated fleet of clapped out Class 56s we pinky promise to take better care of FY: They're just as crap and keep falling over anyway. If that's your best, we'll buy our own from abroad. Stuff that works, not your heaps of leaking tat.

Simple, give them a very short timeframe to design something from scratch

The Mirrlees was a good engine, but I was told by reps that they are great, constant load constant speed. So no good for rail traction. Remember that the class 31 started with Mirrlees and had to be re engined with EE units. So BR learned nothing !

What's wrong with a free market economy? Sounds like you'd be first to light the brazier for standing around holding poorly drawn signs.

Seize the means of production 😂😂

I assume you in Venezuela wrote that on your East German PC from 1986?

Nobody forcing you to click on it.

How does the cab environment compare to the 66?

​@@citizenerased1992 The 60s cab is by far better, you can hold a normal conversation in a 60 on full load, in a 66 you need ear protection for notch 5 and above. You cannot travel with the windows open on a 66 because hot air gets drawn in, the list goes on and on.

To think that everything will be right right from the first drawing is nothing else than silly

Was the whole project sabotaged by the demand that the first one be delivered in a year?

Overambitious targets that resulted in a crap design. They failed due to poor management like the Class 58, though the 'Bones' were superior designs because they were modular, the 60s didn't really have anything going for them.