Sorry i cannot answer that question.

Tbf the last few locos built in the uk have been appealing, better to have tested design that's used globally than some right leaner britan first has come up with lol

59/66 was designed by the us no?

@@Raygun-xb2st You really are a rather dim witted individual, the fact that this country no longer has the capability or expertise to built its own locomotives, or create anything particularly useful is a damning indictment on not only the country as a whole but our education system failing to bring forward new engineers, designers, etc. We have effectively ceased to be a nation, if we are incapable of building the items we need and rely upon and are now at the point where virtually everything has to be imported, not only does that have a dreadful effect on the national economy, but it effectively puts us at the mercy of whoever we are having to import the items from. Importing our energy from foreign states or importing biomass from the US to fire Drax power station is both idiotic in terms of transportation costs and security. This country is a non entity if we cannot build the things we need domestically. The fact that the last couple of British built locos have not been upto scratch is another example of the failures of our education system and our politicians. It is neither right wing or left wing it is basic common sense.

To compound the misery port talbot steelworks isn't British owned anyway. The real decline was when British steel sold it to tata.

@@ironknobsteelworks4063 it was Dutch owned too

Class 98 is the blanket classification for steam locomotives

@@andrewreynolds4949 That's right. You get three times the bangs per buck. That adds up to a lot of fixed interest charges. Unless the design is exceptional, like the class 37, a significant proportion of their 25 year life is spent doing nothing because there isn't the work for them for one reason or another, so capital costs are important. If light oil is used instead of coal, fuel consumption is much the same as diesel, and emissions are completely clean due to more efficient combustion. Decarbonising the railways is an expensive irrelevancy as railways amount to less than 1% of total CO2 emissions. Robin Riddles pointed all this out 70 years ago and was ignored, and other engineers with an understanding of economics have done the same thing repeatedly ever since, but politicians and railway managers love glossy expensive technology, so they get ignored.

@@physiocrat7143 Steam requires far, far more in labor and maintenance, both man-hours and cost. Locomotive startup takes a very long time, compared to almost immediate for diesel. Operations managers have understood the significant advantages diesel has over steam for just as long; Most of North America was already going for diesel by the time the Modernization Plan won in the UK, and if the process hadn't been rushed and botched British Railways would have been far better off

@@andrewreynolds4949 Correct. You are talking about steam technology 75 years ago using a fleet of which much dated from before the First World War. Steam locomotive technology has come a long way since then. The issues you refer to were addressed in the 1970s and 1980s. The thermodynamics are also better understood, leading to improved efficiency. There is a lot of information about this if you search for advanced steam. Light up time is reduced or eliminated with pre-heat systems and improvements to insulation, which also reduces boiler stress. Efficiency is improved through better design of exhaust systems or compounding. Wear is reduced by using light oil as fuel instead of coal. This also raises the power output. Internal combustion engines are not particularly suitable in railway applications where power demand is intermittent. A lot of power must be installed which is then idling for most of the time but working flat out for brief periods. A boiler, or a battery, acts as an energy storage system while conversion of chemical energy takes place at a slower constant rate. In the US, trains run at quite a slow steady speed over level tracks for hours on end. Basic workhorses like the SD40 are just the thing.

@@physiocrat7143 The issues with start up time, based on the time required to boil water, as well as other operation disadvantages are still the same. It's all well and good to make a more fuel efficient or more powerful version of what you have, but you can't change the basic laws of thermodynamics. Diesel power has also come a very long way in the last 75 years, and even in the last 40 years; new diesel locomotives have become 10 - 20 % more fuel efficient in the last twenty years alone, while also getting 5 - 10 % more powerful. I love steam but it's never coming back as mainline power.

@marvinmarvin2424 Brush do not exist Wabtec closed the factory. It was not a choice.

@@robtiller6006 yes it was sad to see, Mirrlees Stockport went to Man BMW

@@DavidJones-wx4im totally different application.

Surely less tractive effort on a bo-bo with less friction, and obviously more chance of wheel slip??

Class 89 would pretty much need to be rebuilt entirely to give the capability of the 99, at that point it’s probably better to just get a new locomotive. Not even sure the required hardware would even all fit inside a class 89

@@cd66061 my mistake - meant to say C0C0

@@andrewreynolds4949 Class 89 is almost 40 years old now, so it would almost be a new loco now - a missed opportunity imho

@@andrewbrown6786 40 years old is usually the point when the whole machine is worn out enough it's probably better to scrap and build new, unless you can reuse bits of frame. But I don't think you can fit the 99's equipment on the 89's frame arrangement

They could certainly haul that

@@andrewreynolds4949 it’s a joke mate the class 37s is way better and a class 40 and a class 45 peak 💯🔥🔥🔥

@@jamesmckelvey Morning Star is a 9F steam locomotive on the Somerset and Dorset Railway at Midsomer Norton

"forever in Electric Dreams"....much better!

@mikeuk4130 500kn available on diesel and electric the diesel is 1.8Mw. It still have same TE in electric and diesel due to its modern traction control system.

A couple of the speakers say "1.8kW power" 9:59 "1.8kVee diesel" 4:11 - are they just getting the units wrong?

​@@robtiller6006 Hi, Rob, that will be good news indeed in areas with no wires yet. I look forward to seeing them working next year. Best, Mike.

@TheMichaelWilcock2016Railways I don't talk over the video I use the titles as some people who don't understand English prefer to read and understand.

Ups! Didn't think of that, sorry.

Option for 20 more.

​@@sansovino4124 Yes, but that's still only half as many. I expect more will be phased in over the years while the best 66s are kept running.

@@mikeuk4130 Yeah, I don't understand things these days. 92's lying unusable, 93's, 99's, 88's, with 68's going in to store. All in small numbers. Even 70's were only ordered in small numbers. I don't like 66's a great deal but at least they were system wide and could do most freight jobs. Privatisation has messed up the loco industry.

​@sansovino4124 if you think about it .. its actually streamlined the loco market .. before privatisation, a good number of classes were still reasonably active, most of these are no longer .. and the operators have to operate at a profit so electric traction unfortunately sometimes suffers when leccy prices are greater than diesel. Hopefully, the incoming government will find a way to allow operators to run electric traction where accessible at the same price or cheaper than diesel otherwise those pantos on 99001 onwards may not see so much use ..

⁠@@sansovino412492’s are pure electric, we don’t own any of the others, and they are too small for our needs as a company.

Even better than a 68 and 88 ?

@@markknight1011the extra pair of axles makes the difference. 8 wheels good, 12 wheels for freight.

@@markknight1011 they are practically the same thing

99 is considerably more powerful than the class 88 in both modes, though less powerful than the 68 on diesel, and is geared for a lower speed. They are considerably different