Talk:British Rail Class 60

previous class 60 photo

Hi, if anyone knows how to get two pictures in the same box, please let me know, apologies to the author of the last picture (60's at Peak forest) i didn't realise it would do that - Llamafish 19:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You can't! Its a standard format infobox, and this one (like most) only allows one photo. I revamped the article, and moved your photo to a place which better illustartes the words within the article. Rgds, --Trident13 19:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you can. Just use the break command <br>. Mjroots (talk) 10:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Why have two pictures in the infobox? There is the rest of the article in which to insert images...

"Unprecedented Frothing By Paint Neds"

Hi, Not sure that the above phrase is particularly clear, in that I have no idea what the author is getting at. Also, it's hardly very suitable for an encyclopaedia, is it?

Anybody? rgds Cheekyal 14:51, 7 Aug 2008 (UTC)

Dunno - can't find it now - was it about a new livery - a 'paint ned' would be a trainspotter who gets exited about new colour schemes. 'Unprecedented frothing' would be the act of getting excited (a bit like a kettle boiling over).??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 01:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

References?

Article is a bit personal - "frugal fuel consumption"??? A bit of distance from the subject would help - if anyone want's to sort out this articles minor problems.

If nothing happens I suppose I will have to repair what I can, and tag the dubious statements with the relevent tags.

also "Speculation has it that EWS are going to invest heavily on the fleet in the next few years, although they are redoubtably investigating Freightliner's new Class 68 fleet due to enter service in 2009, as well as other products from Europe"

"Although even the oldest members of the Class 60 fleet are just about to hit the 20 year mark, their prospects have not looked as favourable as they might have in recent times"

Does anyone see what I mean? potentially unreliable statements, and and vagueries.

Also Tractive_effort has different tractive effort figures.

Also (from Continuous_tractive_effort) 336kN @ 17.4mph appears to equal 2700kW of power (at rail) which is 400kW more than the output of the engine!!! Does anyone have reliable figures for this loco? (I noticed a trend on this page and elsewher to make claims about the power of these locos - despite having a no more powerful engine (on paper) than 56,66,58s ?) For some reason this article seems to regard class 58s as being substantially less powerful. Possibly a bit of favouritism has crept in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 00:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The artcle does seem to contradict itself. It goes from saying they are unreliable to saying they are extremely reliable. 86.141.114.73 (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a go at making it better in the next few weeks if no-one else does first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 13:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Tractive Effort Again

(nick.cory@web.de) Many enthusiasts are likely to be unaware that power at rail = tractive force x speed and thus tractive force must fall as speed rises in a constant-power situation, and in turn lead to the balancing speed at which any locomotive will crawl up an incline from a standing start (if at all). Many are likely to be unaware that tractive force will only reach theoretical maximum when there is an equal and opposite reaction posed by the load. Perhaps we should write a "train physics" page and insert references to it all over the place. I am speculating: there can be different claims made for engine output, the shaft-hp and brake-hp figures will differ due to the methods involve. Still, we must reckon with up to 300hp / 270kW of internal losses for any of the machines in this power class. Figures in kW are most likely measured according to DIN. In none of these cases am I able to quote figures for the engine of the Class 60 or any other. The figure for tractive force of the Class 60 strikes me, now that I compare them for the first time, as remarkably high compared with the figure given in Wikipedia for the Class 66. Is this down to traction motor capacity? Or better adhesion management with SEPEX? In my own, admittedly limited, experience of cab riding in Class 66 during ETCS tests on Betuweroute in Holland I have seen the engine diagnostic panel show a transient figure of 419 kN after a standing start with 1680t trailing load in the Pannerdensch tunnel. Is anyone able to write an objective comparitive appraisal of the Class 60 and the Class 66? 78.64.54.240 (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that the quoted figures for tractive effort are largely theoretical and take no account of adhesion. It would be more useful to have figures for drawbar pull as measured by a dynamometer car. However, I did read somewhere that the Class 60 is superior to the Class 66 for starting a heavy train uphill because of better anti-wheelspin control. Biscuittin (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There's an article Tractive force which explains the principle.

The class 66 (and GM locos in general) have anti wheelspin control, maybe it doesn't work ? :) , they (66) are less powerful on paper, (but only a few percent), so probably less powerful in practice as well - (with or without wheelspin control).87.102.67.84 (talk) 02:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

What I read was that the anti-wheelspin control on the Class 60 works from zero speed but that on the Class 66 only works when the loco is moving, so it is no help when starting. Whether this information is true, I don't know. Biscuittin (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite

As outlined with the problems above - I've rewritten this article a bit.

There is still a problem with the continuous tractive effort (318kN @ 28km/h) which still exceeds the max engine power, (let alone the power at rail).

As such I've marked the figure as dubious in the info box - If anyone can sort this out please do.FengRail (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You are quite right - the quoted figure is impossible. I will give the figures so they can be checked (I used imperial units because I found it easier): 17.4 mph x 1.467 = 25.5 ft/sec. 25.5 x 71,570 lbf = 1,825,035 ft lb/sec. Divide by 550 = 3318 hp, i.e. more than the 3100 hp engine rating. It would be interesting to check the figures for some other locos and see whether such anomalies are common. Biscuittin (talk) 09:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've checked quite a few (UK and european) and all I've found have tractive effort power matching (or a few percent less) than the rated power.87.102.67.84 (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

DB Schenker

The latest news is that "In 2009, DB Schenker have only go 13 of the 100 strong fleet in service."

However another(?) person says that:

"In 2008, EWS was acquired by Deutsche Bahn and incorporated into its DB Schenker group. DB Schenker have stated that in the economic down-turn (2008 onwards : see Global financial crisis of 2008–2009 for details) the Class 60s will all be stored."

The two don't quite match: are all stored? or has the situation improved? Given the unreferenced nature of the facts, and the vague contradiction I have removed both for now, until clarification..FengRail (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

My sources indicate that all 60s will be put into storage as of today (14/12/09), although I don't know which ones will be put into warm or cold storage. 92.1.239.201 (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds as though the Class 60s are on the way out. Are there any plans to preserve one? Biscuittin (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've added a section. Biscuittin (talk) 09:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

References

Fuel consumption

Just struck me as rather non encyclopedic Caslad (talk) 19:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it. The topic is general to rail freight - as such it has no real place on a specific article.

For those interested Fuel efficiency in transportation would be a good place to start.

For some reason this particular class of locomotive has been attracting some zealous pushing of it's alleged superiority over all other types of locomotive operating in the UK. It's really not helpful, not encyclopedic, and just makes us all look like asses. So please stop. Thanks.83.100.250.79 (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's just British railway enthusiasts being patriotic. Biscuittin (talk) 09:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I found some text "pushing" the Class 59 so I've removed that too. Biscuittin (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

History

Does anyone know the date they commenced testing as the article states: "The first locomotive was delivered in June 1986 and sent to Derby for testing".

however in a earlier paragraph: "On 10 August 1987, the British Rail Board issued a competitive tender for response by 7 November, for a fleet of 100 locomotives."

As it is impossible to test a loco before building it, some revised dates are needed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Memo232 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

someone fixed it - it was 89, not 86 - typo.87.102.67.84 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC).

Engine starting

According to the Tugtracker reference there are two starter motors. I thought starting was by compressed air. Does anyone have more information? Biscuittin (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I worked for Brush as a comissioning engineer on the '60s during the introductory period. The engine starter system is indeed via 2 electric starter motors and not via an air start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.248.152.174 (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Biscuittin (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy and sources

Most of the article is sourced to a variety of apparently self-published websites. These do not seem to meet the criteria for reliable sources.

There are at least two factual errors in the article. I've not corrected them as I don't have sources. However:

1. "The class 60s primarily worked on aggregate (specifically stone) traffic..." The class were originally allocated to oil, coal, steel and aggregate traffic. As I recall, the class was split approximately equally between these sectors.

2. "The whole class of one hundred locomotives was based at Toton TMD..." Certainly not initially. To my recollection, locomotives were allocated to Toton, Immingham, Thornaby, Cardiff Canton and London Stewarts Lane.

Dricherby (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there's a general lack of info on workings as far as I can tell, with currently self published sources being the only source, and all the attendent problems that brings. I've removed some of the unreferenced stuff - including things that have their accuracy questioned, or stuff that seems partially opinion. Still needs work. Does a good book on the class exist yet? Sf5xeplus (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree with Dricherby re point 2 - a glance through Platform 5 Locomotives & Coaching Stock, 1990-94 editions (ie the delivery period), shows that early allocations included TO (Toton), TE (Thornaby), IM (Immingham), CF (Cardiff Canton), SL (Stewarts Lane). Subsequent editions until that of 1997 show a similar scatter (although I didn't notice any depots other than those five, there may have been others involved); but in the 1998 edition, all are shown at Toton. I've not analysed the sector allocations. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I can confirm that under BR, Trainload Freight (SE) and Mainline Freight the following locomotives were allocated to Stewarts Lane 60001/9*/17/8/9/39/40/1/2/3/99*/100 The loco's 60009 and 60099 were allocated to Toton for some of their pre EWS lives, as well as Stewarts Lane. Smudger105e 19:27 31/01/11

The aggregate reference possibly comes from the fact we used to use trains out of Radeltt Quarry for testing and commissioning runs for locomotives ex-works, we also use workings out of Bentinck Colliery. I was student engineer at the time working for Brush, the comment above on the 5 initial mean depots is correct, but as time went on locos were out stationed at depots such as Buxton and Wigan Springs Branch. 60s also replaced double headed 37's on some steel workings, 6M37/6E31 Lackenby/Workington/Lackenby was one i cab rode want times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.170.20 (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Class 60 disposals sept 2010

Hello. I've reference the disposal of 20 class 60s from http://www.rail.dbschenker.co.uk/disposals/disposals.html.

However this link will almost certainly go dead (the closing date is 27th sept..) can someone else add a permantent reference, eg reliable news source etc. thanks.Sf5xeplus (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

For future record I've listed the loco mumerbs here: 1 60001 Toton 2 60006 Toton 3 60008 Toton 4 60014 Toton 5 60023 Toton 6 60031 Toton 7 60038 Crewe TMD 8 60042 Toton 9 60050 Toton 10 60055 Crewe TMD 11 60058 Toton 12 60068 Toton 13 60070 Toton 14 60075 Toton 15 60078 Toton 16 60080 Toton 17 60081 Toton 18 60082 Crewe TMD 19 60089 Toton 20 60098 Toton Copied directly from [1] excuse me.Sf5xeplus (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

ok found a link via http://www.railwayherald.org/ issue 238. Sf5xeplus (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible change to the title of this article

This article is currently named in accordance the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways naming conventions for British rolling stock allocated a TOPS number. A proposal to change this convention and/or its scope is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Naming convention, where your comments would be welcome.

Class 60 disposals April 2013

Some class 60s are being offered for sale by Romic-Ace,[2] a company based in Singapore.[3] Does anybody have further information? Biscuittin (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Errors in engine dimensions

The metric/imperial conversions for engine bore and stroke in Modern Locomotives Illustrated, issue 206, April-May 2014, page 16, ISSN 1756-8188 are inaccurate. I have corrected them, based on the metric figures. The metric figures give the correct cubic capacity: 13.75 x 13.75 x 30.5 x 3.142 x 8 / 1,000 = 144.9 litres. Biscuittin (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Preservation

The Class 60 Preservation Group [4] seems to be defunct. Biscuittin (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems to have been revived. Biscuittin (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I consider their work sabotage.. Still need these engines to bring stone from Skitpon to Hull. Do not want them preserved onto some 4 mile stretch of bullhead rail in a national park somewhere..Prof.Haddock (talk) 22:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on British Rail Class 60. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20160205061045/http://www.c60pg.co.uk/ to http://www.c60pg.co.uk

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on British Rail Class 60. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205215324/http://www.thejunction.org.uk/cl60.html to http://www.thejunction.org.uk/cl60.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160205061045/http://www.c60pg.co.uk/ to http://www.c60pg.co.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British Rail Class 60. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141214032421/http://www.traintesting.com/Class_60.htm to http://www.traintesting.com/Class_60.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

How much loss?

From the lede: a restructuring of the Railfreight sector of BR, which over a three-year period, saw a £264 annual loss turned into a £44 million profit

I don't have access to the source, but that doesn't sound like very much of a loss! Should it be £264 million, or something like that? Adam Sampson (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)