British Rail Class 60 Locomotives

Edward Gleed

• Publisher: Crowood
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781785001505
• Topic: Technologie et ingénierie
• Subtopic: Transport ferroviaire

During the mid-1980s, in a drive for greater efficiency, British Rail required another heavy freight locomotive, some of the earlier Type 5 freight locomotives being outdated and no longer regarded as suitable for heavy freight duties. The new Class 60 locomotive was to be constructed using lessons learned from the Classes 56 and 58. Six organisations were invited to tender but only three did so. The contract was awarded to Brush Electrical Machines (today, Brush Traction, part of the Wabtec Rail Group) for a powerful 60mph Type 5 Co-Co design, which resulted in an order being placed for one hundred Class 60 diesel-electric locomotives. Using original research from the National Archives, British Rail Class 60 Locomotives is a high illustrated guide that explores the commissioning of the Class 60s and their construction, testing and running. It undertakes an in-depth technical appraisal of the class and details names, liveries, modifications and preservation and includes the 'Super 60' refurbishment programme and acquisition of ten Class 60s for Colas Rail UK, bringing the timeline to the present day. Of interest to all diesel loco enthusiasts and railway modellers, thie book is lavishly illustrated with 280 colour and black & white photographs, many previously unpublished.

CHAPTER ONE

TENDERING AND CONTRACT

Why were the Class 60s required? During the 1980s, BR was faced with a major problem due to an upsurge in freight demand and heavier trainloads demanded by the customer. At that time the traction that BR could offer to haul the heavier demand was suffering from rising maintenance costs, and many locomotives had accrued twenty-five years of, in some cases, punishing service. The fact that many of the classes are still seen performing frontline operations on the main line today – notably Classes 20, 31, 37 and 47 (albeit in vastly reduced numbers from the original build) – is a credit to their designers and manufacturers.

But in the 1980s, BR could not meet the needs of the customer in terms of traction power. The oil crisis of the early 1970s caused BR to issue an urgent requirement for an ‘intermediate freight locomotive’ to be rated at 3,500hp for hauling coal traffic. During 1975 Brush had designed the Class 56, which was based on the Class 47 body; however, the Class 56 had a 3,500hp engine, which had been installed along with different bogies. The construction of the first thirty Class 56s had been undertaken by Electroputere in Craiova, Romania; these were considered to be a high power ‘stop-gap’ locomotive, though they suffered from quality problems, thought to include electrical wiring issues and poorly machined axles. The remaining 105 Class 56s were constructed by BREL (British Rail Engineering Limited) and were deemed to be of much better build quality, though by this time the engines had been de-rated to 3,250hp in order to afford greater reliability. Over the years, the Class 56’s reliability improved to an adequate level and was considered by many to be a good second choice to the later Class 60; however, the tremendous tractive effort and hill start/all-weather performance capability of the Class 60 was (and still is) far superior to that of the Class 56.

In 1983 BR designed the radical-looking Class 58; it was constructed by BREL and was intended to be a general freight locomotive. However, in reality the Class 58s were used on heavy coal trains to which they were not best suited due to the mediocre wheelslip performance of their BR-designed bogies. Unfortunately the Class 58s were deemed to be as troublesome as the Class 56s, although during their careers the 58s settled down and, like the 56s, gave adequate performance – though not as good as even the 56s while hauling heavier freight.

In order for BR to satisfy their customers’ requirements, a decision needed to be reached quickly, and so BR undertook a rigorous tendering process for a new Type 5 heavy freight locomotive. This would be a massive investment for BR, and so they required a contract that was not only robust, but one that could deliver the best value for money, even if it meant exploring the possibility of purchasing overseas. BR’s preferred option would be to support British industry, but only if they could match or better the offer by overseas manufacturers. In the early 1980s, BR published their intent to purchase up to 200 new freight locomotives to replace the Class 37s, amongst others, which were to be nominally rated at 2,000hp. The freight locomotives were to utilize the Co-Co wheel arrangement, and to be uncomplicated in design in order to aid ease of maintenance and ensure high reliability. Low life-cycle expenditure was seen to be at least as important as the initial outlay.

An alternative solution would have been to carry out major overhauls of, and/or possibly to re-engine certain classes of locomotive to meet those requirements. This had been partially the case in the past, although not in any huge numbers. During the mid-1980s, six members of the Class 37 fleet (numbered 37901–37906 respectively) underwent extensive modification and alterations, and re-classification to 37/9. This involved the installation of new engines and other associated equipment, four of which were supplied by Mirrlees and two by Ruston. Following the installation of the engines in the Class 37/9s, BR then had to evaluate which of the two companies’ engines would be the most cost effective, and best suited to hauling heavy loads up stiff gradients.

Was the Class 60 Needed?

The Railfreight sector of BR needed to be certain that the Class 60 was actually needed. Were there any advantages in ordering a less powerful locomotive such as a Class 38, for example, which could be used on certain traffic, or indeed in carrying out life extensions to other classes of locomotive? It was noted that certain classes, notably Class 33s and Class 47s, were deemed unsuitable for life extensions, citing the fact that such an extension would be prohibitively expensive. However, this theory relating to Class 47s was disproved during the late 1990s, as Brush Traction converted thirtythree Class 47s and rebuilt them as Class 57s. Interestingly, the Freightliner Class 57s (and 12-645-F3 at 2,750bhp for the ETS locomotives for Virgin Trains and First Great Western Class 57s) were equipped with a General Motors 12-645-E3 engine developing 2,500hp. As will be described later in this chapter, a General Motors engine was offered to BR to power the Class 60.

An appraisal was carried out in 1986 for a standard fleet replacement, to be known as the Class 38. However, in a memorandum to the Investment Committee for the Class 60 diesel electric locomotives, is was felt that the difference in cost between the Class 38 and Class 60 specification was not great, and it was preferred to invest in a fleet of locomotives that could haul heavier trains in the future should the need arise. Within the Investment Committee’s memorandum, they had been asked to request authority for the issue of invitations to tender for 100 Class 60 diesel electric locomotives for the core trainload freight business.⁴

British Rail had gained experience from the private operator Foster Yeoman, who owned and operated an American ‘Switcher’ (shunting locomotive) – the General Motors EMD SW1001 No. 44 Western Yeoman, constructed in the USA, and which was put into use at their company quarry at Merehead in Somerset. Foster Yeoman, who had been impressed by this Switcher unit, went on to source the highly successful Class 59 diesel electric locomotives. This took place in 1985, and it was a significant event when the new Class 59 EMD locomotives arrived at Foster Yeoman.

The first batch of Class 59s was constructed between 1985 and 1989 by General Motors, Electro Motive Division, in La Grange, Chicago, USA. The Class 59’s performance changed the thinking at BR, and the specification for the new freight locomotives was changed to 100 units at 3,100hp with adhesion enhancement: this would become the Class 60. The Class 59s had clearly shown that they were able to haul some of BR’s heaviest trains, aided by technological advances in wheelslip control, known as ‘Super Series’ control. Moreover the Class 59’s low running costs and high availability were sure to be in favour with BR.

In summary, BR laid down tough criteria: the new Type 5 locomotives had to be the most cost effective to build, test and commission. Furthermore, the locomotives had to have high availability coupled with low running costs; this would allow heavier trains to be hauled, negating the need for double heading. Although the GM Class 59 credentials certainly looked most favourable, the UK government was very keen to support British industry, which at that time was going through very difficult times. A substantial order such as the Class 60 would certainly go some way to alleviate the situation, and no doubt the government would have leant heavily on BR to select the British option. However, BR were keen to select a manufacturer that could supply the Class 60s within a short timeframe, and would also give the best value for money. The 100 Class 60 locomotives would allow 240 existing ageing locomotives to be withdrawn, in some cases en masse.⁴

DBS 59202 powers one of the many aggregate workings that operate between the Somerset quarries and the south-east. This is Crofton on the Berks & Hants line on 14 August 2013. EDWARD GLEED

Required Specifications for the Class 60

A business and operating specification for the Class 60 had been drawn up, which required following; a key selection of the operating specifications is described below.

Scope of the project:

The locomotive was required to haul specific heavy trains on a variety of routes throughout the country.

The fleet of 100 Class 60s were to be delivered within financial years ranging between 1989 and 1992.

The life expectancy was to be forty years, with half-life rebuilding.

Cost targets:

Maintenance costs: £45,000 per annum.

Fuel consumption: 400,000ltr (88,000gal) for an annual 96,000km (59,654 miles).

Performance:

Haulage capability: The locomotive had to be able to start a train of mixed stock 2,800 tonnes trailing load, and continuously haul a mixed train of 2,250 tonnes, both on a 1 in 100 rising gradient on relatively straight track. In addition, slow speed control was required at 0.8, 1.6 and 4.32km/h (0.5, 1.0 and 2.68mph).

General requirements:

Two driving cabs were to be provided, one at each end, and to be full width.

Ambient temperatures: –30o +40o.

The locomotive had to be able to negotiate snow left after the passage of snow ploughs, and to travel through wind-borne snow. Miniature snow-plough brackets were required.

The locomotive had to be able to negotiate 150mm (6in) floodwater above rail level.

Compatibility:

Track-circuit operation was to comply with signalling principles, No. 36.

AWS and Vigilance devices were to be fitted, together with NRN radio equipment.

The locomotive had to be able to work with all air-braked freight rolling stock, and be able to work in multiple with another Class 60 locomotive.

The 7 May 1988 proved to be an important day for the Class 60s. Having sought government approval for 100 Class 60 diesel electric locomotives, a letter was signed and sent from Paul Channon (Department of Transport) to Sir Robert Reid (British Railways Board), giving formal approval to the proposal for the purchase of 100 Class 60 diesel electric locomotives, at an estimated cost of £121.5m.⁴

The Tendering Process

On 23 July 1987, a memorandum to the British Railways Board Investment Committee was produced for the invitation to tender for the Class 60. The purpose of the memorandum was to seek authority to invite tenders for the Class 60 locomotives.The memorandum outlined the fact that the present fleet of diesel locomotives was in excess of twenty-five years’ service, coupled with rising maintenance costs. It further mentioned that a proposal to acquire a quantity of Class 60 locomotives was being evaluated against a base case for the retention of a number of classes, namely Classes 20, 31 and 47.⁴

Hitherto, no life extension programme had been undertaken on these locomotives. Certa...