YRP North East: A Look at GBRf's Class 69 Modification Project with Bob Tiller

[@johno4521]

A very interesting talk. Bob Tiller's clearly very proud of his creation and rightly so.

[@FM60260]

Are redundant parts from the class 56s used in this project kept for existing and preserved examples (like 56006) or just scrapped?

[@TheMicksterdee]

As a former train driver with EWS at Immingham, I had significant experience on the class 56. When first designed the traction performance was not as developed at with the General Motors product, so they were prone to wheelslip. Another irritation was with suspension, but the "bogie lifting" referred to by Bob Tiller may have rectified this problem. For many years, I had hope that someone with the wherewithall to sort these locomotives issues and finally make the locomotive as good as it should be!

[@scotsguy422]

I remember them new. Guide Bridge men were trained on them to take the MGR's to Fiddlers Ferry with increased loads over a standard 47. They sounded the business and the engine could fair lay down the power. However, as you say, they had their fair share of technical problems. What I would say though is the class were flogged to death by an indifferent management culture at the time (1980's to 2000). Little wonder most of them were ready for scrap! Neverthless I think its superb what they have achieved with the original class and it proves that BREL were still capable of building good, solid, sturdy locos designed to last well beyond their operational time. Bob Tiller mentions about the lack of space in the engine room, compared to the replacement engine but of course he's not comparing like with like - four stroke to two stroke diesels. Ever tried walking through the engine room and compressor compartment of a class 47? Ever tried to shut down a boiler in a Deltic engine room? The boiler was positioned inbetween the Napier engines! All I'm saying is space was and is always at a premium in an engine room. As for the Class 69 - I think its superb the quality and standard of build and finish. We need more home grown development like this in the rail industry.

[@TPEsprit]

Many congratulation on this truly marvellous idea! It's very exciting, I have the fondest memories of seeing the Class 56s on freight workings during the '80s and early '90s at Eastleigh, Andover, Winchester and Reading areas. They always seemed potent machines and had a certain presence about them. It was a tremendous thrill to cab 56045 at the Eastleigh Works open day in 1988 (and 56052 I believe in 1992). A most deserving locomotive, it is a joy to see that they have been renewed and given such an excellent new life so that we can see them live on in a new, contemporary and more environmentally friendly form; and I love the livery on 69002 - it's beautiful! I hope with all my heart that they can serve GBRf very well for many years!

[@mikeuk4130]

It's very good finally to see and hear more details of the work done on the 56 to bring it up to current standards as Class 69. GBRf should be recognised for making good use of these once-excellent but now very old and tired locos and I hope they have a long and useful second life. Clearly, we will miss the sound of the Paxman, but I'm sure the 69 will prove to be a worthy, reliable and efficient addition to the GBRf fleet. Please may we see more lovely and appropriate historic liveries used on the remainder of the class?

[@CosgroveNotts]

Well done Bob. Hope it's successful 👍

[@matthewdickson7838]

Excellent project well executed and expained ..

[@andymath1523]

Have you done anything about traction pads as on the Cl 56 these broke apart rather regularly and would think the increase in tractive effort would put even more pressure on them . Nice to see the 56 being reused even though I had the misfortune to work on this class for many years , did you look into the experimental 56 we had it at IMM it had electronic wheel creep system and worked quite well

[@jonathansanger862]

I wonder if the Class 56 alternators could be re-used to rebuild some Class 47s with EMD engines.

[@kalicom2937]

That idea seems familiar... where have I seen it before????

[@jonathansanger862]

It all started when some Class 47s were rebuilt and reclassified as Class 57s. This uses second hand EMD engines rated at 2500 hp or 2750 hp as per traction motor specification and ex-Class 56 alternators. It certainly improved their reliability, running costs and reducing their exhaust emissions.

[@kalicom2937]

@@jonathansanger862 I was trying to be humorous.... In my day (don't spot any more so out of the loop) we called them Body Snatchers. Guess the new class could be called the same?

[@andymath1523]

Be shame to scrap them 56 alternators one of the few bits on the class 56 that gave very little trouble , actually more robust than the CL EMD alternator with its appetite for slip rings

[@antonysmith9173]

That driving cab looks a nice place to be,especially on a cold wet miserable night. Lucky drivers,would swap in an instant.

[@Ashfaq1999]

Brilliant video, thank you.

[@chefblanc]

has Simon kohler taken pics and taken measurements and recorded a sound file yet?

[@kellypaws]

I'll wait for the Bachmann...

[@MrPeperidge]

I'm by no means an expert at all. Could someone briefly explain what makes this renovation more economical than say purchasing a new loco? It seems like Triggers Broom. Don't get me wrong though, I am ecstatic seeing these older units being given new life. All done in the UK. So good to see.

[@johno4521]

The figures speak for themselves. 4m for a new loco, 2.1m for the 56 conversion.....

[@dmclement74]

What new loco? 66s are no longer available, and there are no other Co-Co Type 5 locos available from any current manufacturer.

[@gs425]

It's a way around the emissions limit that stops new locos that don't meet newest emmision standards.. BS in other words lol

[@rearspeaker6364]

@@gs425 thanks greta!!

[@fetchstixRHD]

@@johno4521: Not to mention that the 69’s have an (expected) lifespan of 30 years. Considering decarbonisation and all, seems like a fair deal to me from what I can see…

[@petergarrett1852]

Will they be used out of Whitemoor and Peterborough

[@tamiyatruckbuilding7426]

At the outset you refer to the re-engineering of Class 59s. This is incorrect, they are re-engineered Class 56s.

[@alanbartlett9523]

Why was the class 58 rejected giving the number available.

[@kalicom2937]

Body is too narrow to fit the engine

[@MyMustang72]

@@kalicom2937 no it isnt 58s use the same engine as a 56 but with 4 cyilnders less,i think the width of the block is the same?

[@kalicom2937]

@@MyMustang72 I think you miss the point. It is not about the width of the 56/58 engine, it is about the width of the body of the 56/58 and whether or not there is enough room to shoehorn a class 66 engine in to it.. The 58 body is narrower - the T bone shape gives it away.... By the way, I was told this by one of the engineers that worked on the conversion after asking - in the comments of a video just like this one - why 58 donor was not used .

[@chefblanc]

i don't mind what colour its in as long as its blue, BR blue ,all over..my decision is final.

[@andrewsewell9179]

I think the lights on the front of the 69 should be Horizontal and not the way they are

[@johno4521]

He explained that there was no room due to the electronics behind.

[@fetchstixRHD]

@@johno4521: For reference, 17:29. Personally I don’t mind too much that the headlights are “upright”, I’m quite happy they’re LED at least!

[@MyMustang72]

surely a 58 could be used as a core doner,because a gm 710 would fit because they also had a ruston engine which was a 12 cly version of the 56 unit,same width,also the body would be newer and it was built to american practise with a hood for eaiseir equipment access.To be honest with the right skills anything is possible,if a group of blokes can rebuild a 58 in to a 10000 replica then longport could repower a 58.

[@mikeuk4130]

You make some good points, but I think the 58 was more simply and cheaply built, to maximise export sales opportunities. In particular, the bogies were far less elaborate and were even more prone to wheel slip than were those on the 56. The 56 is therefore the better candidate for upgrade, as traction is paramount. I'm not, however, in the rail industry and I hope those with more knowledge will comment.

[@andymath1523]

@@mikeuk4130 Often wandered why the 58 was so prone to slip they looked better bogie then 56 as they shared many similarities to the class 60 bogie so may have been easy fix

[@mikeuk4130]

@@andymath1523 My take is that the 56 bogies were disliked by BR because they were complicated, costly and needed so much maintenance, but they were liked by BR operating people because they could do the job. The heavier, cast bogies, eg, "Commonwealth" types, were always more effective. The lighter, fabricated types didn't hurt the track as much, cost less to make and maintain but weren't so effective.

[@andymath1523]

@@mikeuk4130 We didn't get many problems with 56 bogies just the traction pads but maybe they were costly when overhauled .Damper pins were always loose though could always hear them rattle wonder if they cured that BR never did never fell out though . The fabricated 58 bogies do look very similar to the class 60 fabricated bogie though never worked on 58's though only 60's wander if they gone to mono block wheels on 69 ?

[@mikeuk4130]

@@andymath1523 I think these details will come out eventually. It's a hotly-debated topic, to be sure!

[@anthony342]

very good

[@andrzejszyszo4284]

You guys made awesome loco and then destroy her with this awfull head lights.