I always felt that British engineering has the talent but lacked the political support which is a crying shame. There's zero reason to be importing traction and rolling stock to the country that invented railways. It's ridiculous. Love the 66 - it's built right, looks great (sounds awesome!) but with a bit more support the British manufacturing industry could be doing a whole lot more today.
British Rail industry could have also succeeded working with other European railways, but BR had the "not invented here, so we aren't investing in it". Like the German folding door design (has a mechanism which means doors will slam and lock themselves, meaning guards did not need to check doors) somthing most European railways use, but BR didn't.
From the 1950s to 1980s Australia's railways operated a health mix of English Electric, EMD and Alco locomotives, so it offers a good comparison between EE and EMD. When the EMD 645 power plant entered service in the late 1960s on the first 3000hp locomotives, the same engine in Class 59s and SD40s, English Electric's market share in Australia was under threat and never recovered. The 645 engine was just a superior product for power and reliability compared its EE 12CSVT counterpart; it's been installed on brand new locos built in the 21st century for Australian companies.
lack of political support, hell just look at brexit happening despite vocal dissent from industries where import/export is very important. Few things are made all in-house but instead use components built by others, either off the shelf designs or under contract, and having access to europe as a customer and supplier was very useful. Yet it got pushed through regardless with those concerns ignored entirely. This isn't so much a criticism of brexit as a concept but rather the politics around it being very much part of the pattern of anti-manufacturing. Personally think it's Fine we import engines, EMD make damn good prime-movers, but there really could be some support for a domestic manufacturing of freight locomotives using imported prime-movers.
I remember going on holiday to the US one year, and seeing an SD40 for the first time, and was in awe that one of our most durable goods engines was based off that beast! That thing was MASSIVE! Then my friend told me that it was SMALL compared to other goods engines! I was amazed when I saw some of the other engines, such as the ACs and newer SDs.
Benefits of space coupled with higher clearances and loading gauges. When it works properly, the American system can haul around truly staggering amounts of freight. It's also cheaper and faster to unload a container ship at LA, stick those onto a train, and send that train across the entirety of America to an East Coast port like Newark or Norfolk than it is to use the Panama Canal (assuming the ship can fit), nevermind sail all the way around South America.
@@jimmyseaver3647 I think part of it is it can be moved much faster by train than ship, plus the freight will likely end up closer to its end destination in most cases
@@jimmyseaver3647 _"When it works properly, the American system can haul around truly staggering amounts of freight."_ *Australia:* hold my beer Mate...
UK trainspotters refer to 66s as "sheds" due to the shape of the roof. A classic example of getting the basic design right - as Stanier did with the LMS Black 5s in the 1930s.
@@gregrudd6983 ??? Where did you get that? The 66 is based on the 59, which in turn is based on the SD 40-2. You'll have to explain where in the development strand your kangoroos have something to say.
@@pearlyhumbucker9065 They are a lot of similarities between the 59 and the NSW 81 which was also an SD40-2 derivative If you know your export EMD's Equipment layouts in the machinery spaces are pretty much the same. The cowl is of similar design to the 81. Mind you the 59 didn't need to have the 81's heavy cantilever frame. Which is near SD40-2 strengths. Remember the 81 was EMD's export pin up girl in the early to mid 80's so it was pretty much the design basis for the 59. You seem to also forgotten that the Nohab MY's were actually based upon the Clyde-EMD B class for Vic Railways. You seem to have also forgotten that in the early 2000's the Clyde/EDI-EMD QR 4000 class was the EMD reference 3'6" gauge design. In fact it would have been an even better loco than the 66's and would have been able to fit the UK loading gauge without too much tinkering.
@@gregrudd6983 Oh well. It all seems a bit far-fetched to me. It is certainly true that the locomotives are based on the same original model. But that's about it for the similarities in development. Apart from the fact that the NSW 81 (edited typing error) is not based on the class 59, but is a further development of the National Class AL, it must also be taken into account that the adaptation to the British clearance gauge did not just mean a bit of tinkering, after all, the 59 is about 30 cm narrower, lower by the same amount and also has a pointed roof. To bring the MY Bulldog Nose as an example is really not very nice. On the one hand you deny Clyde the ability to develop locomotives, on the other hand you should know that the MY cannot and must not be used freely in Europe because of its dimensions. But anyway. It was nice to read some anti-nationalistic derivations of the development of the 66, even if they are wrong. In any case, they are fun.....
@@pearlyhumbucker9065 for starters there is no NSW 61 class. What is even more far fetched is the idea that EMD itself had no idea of what its licencees did seeing that EMD itself had final sign off on the designs of all it's licencees. My point is the 59 was not a the clean sheet design UK railfans think it was. The whole concept in terms of machinery layouts was proven with the 81 the issue was the loading gauge which forced the deletion of niceties like dynamic braking, the heavy cantilever frame and a different cowl design. If the UK loading gauge could have taken it they would have taken the 81 lock stock barrel (purchased through EMD of course) with the 58 control layout in lieu of the AAR control stand. Nothing nationalist in what I said licencees share IP between themselves and the parent. It happened in passenger rolling stock all the time where "The Budd Company" and its licencees all over the world shared knowledge quite often until Budd fell over in the 80's.
My Dad used to take me to Hayes & Harlington Railway Station when I was a kid back in the 80s/90s. The Class 59 in Yeoman livery was always a welcome spot. You could tell it was a 59 from miles away, as the intensity of their headlights was way greater than any of the British-built locomotives. Luckily, I still have plenty of VHS footage, and photographs that he took from there.
Gotta hand it to EMD, they make a damn fine product. Many of our licence built EMD locos here in Australia are still in revenue service today forty to seventy years after their introduction.
Now part of Progress Rail ...I always loved the sound of an EMD locomotive winding the engine,. Here in "Murica" GE dominates the freight locomotive market..with their GEVO series.
They aren't what they used to be. The last time EMD built anything reliable in the US, we were still bombing the Ho Chi Minh trail. Foamers will deny that vehemently, however, take it from a locomotive engineer: GE makes the best units around, and have since the 1980's.
@@harrimanfox8961 I don't know why I even asked that question or what I meant by it. Was there another comment about it or was there something about space shuttles in this video?
How on Earth did I end up here? I stayed to watch the entire video despite not really being that interested in rail. The logistics aspect of the story is what capture me and kept me in place. Thank you for the great work and the watch!
another absolutely fascinating docu, especially since they hail from my side of the Pond. Amazing how the tin can be reworked to turn a classic american loco like the EM 40 into a thoroughly English looking power unit.
In Germany there is another popular variant of the Class 66: Class 77, which adds an AC to the drivers cab. Not sure about the other changes made from the original Class 66 design.
The 5th door is to do with the “low emission” version making it extremely difficult to walk from the no.2 cross corridor to the non-walk through side of the engine room. Therefore they have the extra door added. There are quite a few in the UK. The European 66s have a different cab layout to the UK batches, which was implemented into the last GBRf batches. 734, 747-779, 793-onwards have the revised cab layout.
The class 77 is pretty much a class 66/9 thus being the most modern variant. The class 77 is just the way they are numbered, when these locomotives came to germany from France many were renumbered to 266 like the other class 66 in germany.
Minor note. SW1001' prime mover(diesel engine) is an 8 cylinder 645 engine. The SW1001 is basically a small American yard switcher locomotive. The cab and frame can be reduced to fit into small spaces.
The majority of accidents with class 66s were due to 3rd party issues, as for your examples - Great Heck was a driver slipping onto the track and derailing a passenger train, Slochd was badly maintained track (due to snow and ice buildup) and Loch Treig was a landslip. I don't thhink you can decry a class for those incidents.
"Land Rover became trapped on the line at Great Heck". That case was decided in the courts as negligence, by the car driver, and not the fault of the railway system. The fuel efficiency of turbo-charged two stroke Diesel engines is legendary. They are used in large container ships. Hence the replacement of Classes 58 and 60. Electric locomotives need overhead wires to the dock-side, which is incompatibele with loading containers by overhead crane.
I love your videos, especially about rail and transport and what not, your videos are unparalleled when it comes to pure information, very good work keep it up
We had Ameican built locomotives in the 1890s on the GNR, GCR and MR to name but 3 railways that used them. This was due to a lack of capacity in UK engines builders. The 2-6-0 2501 Class for the MR were built by Baldwin and introduced in 1899 with the last 3 being withdrawn in 1914. The MR also had 10 2-6-0 2511 Class built for them by the Schenectady Locomotive Works, these were also introduced in 1899, with last example lasting until 1915. The GCR had 20 Class 15 2-6-0 locomotives built in 1899 by Baldwin, but I've not found any records of how long they lasted in service. The GNR had 20 Class H1 2-6-0 locomotives built by Baldwin between 1899 and 1900, the last of which was withdrawn from service in 1915 whilst working in France. Many of the boikers of the GNR locomotives went on to work as stationary boilers. So the use of American locomotives is much older than given here, although the SR's use of the USA Dock Shunters is probably the most famous usage.
This is the modern version of the 'little engine that could'. True its revolutionised rail freight in the UK and some parts of Europe, but this unit is nothing compared to what the USA is using on their metals. And I'm saying this as a Brit! But for our infrastructure this is more or less as big as we can go. Thankyou to our friends across the pond for making this little beast available to us.
Great documentary! The SD40-2 was one of the most numerous and successful locomotives of all time on American railroads, and it's really interesting to hear that the machinery was adapted to fit in the English loading gauge. Quite a story to hear how it eventually became a widely used locomotive on British railways. A minor correction at 4:09, the EMD SW1000/1001 locomotives rated 1000HP have an 8-cylinder 645E engine (Roots-blown, not turbocharged), not 16-cylinder as stated.
One thing that is never mentioned when talking about the class 59/66 is that, in order for the locos to be able to be used in the UK, not only did they have to reduce the size they also had to take 50 tons off the weight. The American SD40-2s and SD70s weigh in at around 400,000 ibs (200 US tons). This would have a profound effect on noise and heat suppression. The cab on the SD70 is known as the "Comfort cab" and would be isolated from the frame and engine. The reliability of these locos comes from their use in the US where they have to haul loads, sometimes up to 15,000 US tons, up gradients of 1:45 for many miles (Sacramento to Donner Pass is almost 60 miles of 2.7%!). I love the sound of the 710 at full throttle with NO muffler.
Well, this was interesting timing. Just yesterday I read an article on the Classes 59 and 66 in the new October issue of Trains magazine here in the US. It's written by the EMD sales manager who was involved with the development and purchases of them. Quite interesting detail and nice photos, too. Cheers from Wisconsin!
Interesting fact is that EW&S was a company established by the Wisconsin Central Railroad, hence the similar colour scheme on their locomotives. The former Eesti Raudtee in Estonia was another company of WCR, and there the nature of the Russian broad gauge and generous loading gauge allowed for the use of former UP GE C36-7 and Conrail C30-7 locomotives. They are apart from Yeomans SW1002 switcher the only locomotives used in Europe which were built primarily for use on the domestic US market, all other equipment sold by EMD, GE, BLH, Alco and MLW as complete locomotives were export models, or they sold prime movers or licenses to build them to European locomotive builders.
It wasn't the engines per se that gave the 59's their performance but the onboard traction computers that made the engine so powerful, the other and older engines could likely pull but they slipped dreadfully and only so much sand in the box can pull those chestnuts out the fire but you didn't need sand with the 59 and it could pull with one loco double any comparable diesel could manage and it was all down to slippage. But put a 59 up against an 86 where OHLE was available and the AL's would show who was master of that game hence why the old 86 is still deemed popular despite newer OHLE capable engines.
I'm so glad I got to watch the 86's flying through Warrington pulling containers before they were replaced with cascaded 90's. However. they were always double headed where a single 66 could haul the same amount or more. 86's were a mixed traffic loco. 66's are a heavy type 5 hauler.
Why do they say that double or triple heading is inefficient? when all but one unit can be remote controlled? If there are any problems with traction, just add more units until they total plenty of traction, and unless the unreliability is in the wheels, they can just add more units so as to continue in case one breaks down. Thus there is no real need for reliability or traction or power as all 3 limits can be overwhelmed by sheer numbers of remote controlled units, all controlled by one driver. They only need to be cheap to fix, and plenty of retired parts engines should take care of that.
Remote control should take care of any cab comfort issues as well, since the driver can just drive from whichever type has the most comfortable cab, and any types with any comfort issues can be lined up behind and controlled remotely.
7:06 Now there's time for you. Every time a new train is introduced all the railfans are so excited to see it in action but then quickly get used to it and appreciating it much more when it is withdrawn than when it was in its prime. All those enthusiasts on the platform then and now a lot less find them very interesting and many railfans even dislike the locomotive. In any lineup on platforms these days almost everyone is standing there watching the 66 go by with a straight face as they wait for their heritage service to pass by compared to this footage. Whenever seeing a railtour I always catch any modern traffic that passes as well as it so that I get as much as I can out of what is currently in existence and not only living in the past while the present goes by. Enjoy something while it's there.
Your best mini-documentary yet! Speech pacing & cadence sounded spot-on - to my Canadian ears, at least: a noticeable improvement over some of the earlier examples. I noticed the spoken audio didn't match the CC data, but the inconsistencies were few and fairly minor. In fact, the overall audio quality, the "listenability" if you will, was excellent!
Living in western Canada near major yards of both Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways, I think it's safe to say that I've seen a great many EMD SD-40's and SD-40T2 (the 'Tunnel Motors' variant originally developed for the Southern Pacific and Union Pacific in the USA, to address 'breathing problems' and overheating in mountain operations). I had occasion to do 'cab rides' 3 times on the CN, running east from Edmonton to Wainwright and west from Edmonton to Hinton. The lead locomotive on two of the three outings was an SD-40. They were the last of the really noisy and uncomfortable EMD/GMD locomotives made for Canadian service. The advent of the wide cab, or "Canadian Cab" that had become standard by the advent of large-scale serial production of the SD-60's was a real revolution in terms of noise, vibration, and cab air quality & temperature. Given the extremes of weather and distance that's usual here, this was a welcome innovation. The other thing the SD-40's became known for was reliability and pulling power - they often ran in Multiple Unit sets of 4 or 5 units on some of the large dedicated-one-cargo unit trains, which even then were running up to 100 cars and 12,000+ tons. The CN have, I believe, phased their SD-40's out of mainline service (most are not equipped for DPU or Distributed Power operation), but some can still be seen working as yard power or leading small way freight branch line trains. I have seen the cab or a UK-destined SD-40, and I'm not surprised that there were complaints. I've wondered more than once if rather than carry forward the original BR Diesel cab layout, it would have been better to "grasp the nettle firmly" and make the change to the larger standard SD-40 cabs, or the "Canadian Cabs" designed for the sD-60's that were nevertheless fitted to late production export model SD-40's. With about 5000 units built, and many still in service on small regional railroads in the USA, there's no doubt that it was a very successful design that many Class 1 railroads operated for decades with 95-97% availability rates. I know that many (most?) UK purists will say that adopting the EMD/GMD standard cab would have been akin to heresy - round tops and round shoulders being a "must have." While this may be true for Bakerloo Line tube trains, there are many freight runs in Britain where there would be no "size problem", and with the late models, the "Comfort cabs" might even have convinced a long time British engineer or conductor that the boxy EMD cab was not _all_ bad :-). Thanks for this interesting presentation.
One issue with the American locomotives on the British rail network is the general loading gauge. The UK's W6 loading gauge which fits most freight routes is about 9' wide by 13' high. American locomotives are more like 10+ feet wide by about 15.5 feet high. It's not so much a political decision as much as American locomotive dimensions just don't fit. In other news, the 'new' class 69 locos being rebuilt from a class 56 body with upgraded class 66 internals are intended to have extra noise dampening in the cabs. There has been some minor speculation about fitting similar upgrades and sound dampening in class 66 locos.
It wasn't until I was involved in diesel loco maintenance here in Australia that I came to appreciate how EMD had refined their locos over 70 years. Their power plants are not only designed for easy maintenance but also to run at full power for long periods in any conditions. It was unfortunate that Britain was not able to buy some in the 50's and 60's which would have saved a lot of buying unproven and unsuitable products.
I remember Foster Yeoman bringing these into the country .I was driving Aggregate and tarmac tippers at the time so we saw them at the Isle of Grain terminal. I still like the old class 37 locos great classic British machines.
It is funny how sometimes thoughts come together like a jigsaw puzzle. When you first mentioned Yeoman, I thought "wait, I have heard that name before" (I am not from the UK, which reduces the odds of being familiar with that name). Then you mention one of the Class 59s being named Yeoman Highlander, and later that it operated in Germany (where I am from) for a while, and then it just struck me. I remember back in the day seeing a locomotive which looked and sounded* completely different from what I was used to and learned that it was the "Yeoman Highlander" from the UK". And so the circle closes. * Diesel-Electric was not a thing in western Germany, as all major Diesel locomotive classes built after World War 2 in Western Germany were Diesel-Hydraulic driven. The German Democratic Republic had Soviet-built Diesel-Electrics, which operated in the entire country after re-unification. but still it was something rather uncommon in the western part of the country.
Very informative video, but 10:30 show box tipplers being loaded when the video comments about the supply of coal to various power stations. However, the wagons that were being loaded were in fact loaded by ilmenite ore - a mineral containing titanium dioxide - and used in the formulation of paints. The ilmenite tipplers were loaded at Immingham Docks and as the tipplers were unfitted were conveyed in class 9 unfitted freight trains to the British Tioxide plant at nearby Grimsby. At the time, these wagons were the only unfitted rolling stock with dispensation to run over the local rail network . In the early 2000s the British Tioxide plant was being run down and was finally closed. Most of their tippler wagons found further use with British Steel at Scunthorpe. To my knowledge the class 66 were never used to haul the wagons .
Thank you this informative vid. I had the honor (?) of making the ocean transport contract for the first 4 FY locos with EMD. At 7:00 minutes in, you have a short clip of the 59's quayside, with the beige ship's gear in the background. Your esteemed rail author, Geoffrey Allen, wrote a book entitled The Yeoman 59s, which I have somewhere. In it he stated that the choice of vessel to transport these locos was suspect, due to its size. Needless to say, that was upsetting. Then a US rail magazine writer directly quoted Allen's comments about the ship as if they were his own. Plagarism. I got over it, and the company that transported the first 59s probably carried the bulk of the 66s as well. EMD privately told me they had to shift the production from Lagrange to London so that the origin of the locomotives was from a Commonwealth country. And I would like to add my condolences on the passing of The Queen.
probably already mentioned below, but since 2016 class 66s see regular use supporting Class 73s on the Caledonian Sleeper north of Edinburgh, which has portions to/from Fort William, Inverness and Aberdeen. The Class 73s providing the train heating and anything else the 66s cannot provide.
Easy maintenance and good reliability has always been the strong point of EMD locomotives, proved by the fact that some members of class 55 in Belgium equipped with EMD prime movers are still going strong after 60 years of service still with the original diesel engine installed.
Except for the SD-50 and SD-90 series, those apparently were terrible. I haven't heard the best things about the new ProgressRail units either. Other than that, EMD units are fantastic.
I have to say it was fun hearing someone British try to pronounce American railroad names. Makes me feel better about how much I mangle the names of Welsh railways.
Thank you! :-) Yes, in the early 2000s, the Class 66 in various liveries seemed to dominate rail freight traffic here in the Netherlands. However, they seem largely replaced by poly-current electric locomotives of German origin: German classes 189 (even in pairs for the iron ore trains), 186 and more recently 193. (My impression, not even opinion!)
You still see them pulling cement trains and such. Especially on smaller rail lines. But you are right basically all of the main freight is pulled by 189/186 nowadays
Overall a very well presented and informative piece which I enjoyed. It's worth noting the class 60s were largely withdrawn because of software and reliability issues. The cost of keeping them was prohibitive and some have been kept in service as they offer a higher T.E than the class 66 so are used on some traffic during poor weather where its been noted the 66s struggled.
I worked in an office by the tracks in Rainham, Essex in 1985. I remember the Class 59s pulling Yeoman aggregate trains. At other times, two Class 37s were required. IT is a shame British engineering was not up to the job.
So, even the UK-built class 56s delivered availability of only 40-60%! I never realised it was as tragically dire as that. What a wretched indictment of what our nation had become! Imagine buying a new car and finding that you could only use it three days a week because of faults and failures requiring workshop service. It's unimaginable. And this from a nation who once built and exported half the railway equipment in the world.
@@alstonofalltrades3142 I was talking about the 56s. The 59s' 95-99% availability would have been commensurate with routine maintenance rather than routine failure.
@@davidstewart4570 I know you was on about the 56's and I also don't want to sound like an arse to someone providing free content. It's just we need to get to the bottom of reliability with the right figures for all locos and put them into context. The Class 60 was to be built to meet a 95% availability, which was good for the time but soon overtaken. I know a lot less about other loco's availability and it's own time frame. It could also be they built a loco that was 20% less reliable than the best at half the cost which is ace in a economical way, whether this is the case with many BR and other countries loco's I don't know but would like to.
I hate to see my brother railroad fans in the UK beating themselves up. I think that the success of GM’s design when adapted for the UK was a direct result of the fact that so many thousands of mechanically similar locomotives had been built for US railroads. The SD (three axles per truck) and GP (four axles) versions had been thoroughly debugged by running successfully under all of the climate conditions prevailing in the US from the snow of Maine to the deserts of Arizona. American railroads are also not known to lavish money on maintenance, to put it mildly. Motive power is expected to take abuse and keep on running.
@@bobjohnston8316 Thanks man for the comments. I don't beat myself up about it. They sound similar to some of the American movies with trains I watched growing up. The 66 is very reliable and very cost effective to boot. I never thought about the weather but you guys have been hauling heavy freight long distances for a long time in large amounts. Stands to reason a better design would come out of that. Every nation has the things they got right. The Japanese proved faster trains could keep the railways competitive in the age of the plane and car. French hold the fastest rail wheel record. We were the first to get active tilt and prove it worked with the APT-E, Concept was proved and then messed up with lack of management of the APT-P for a time. But they sold the patents hence they were still valuable. More countries who did stuff that I have yet to learn I'm sure. Just the other day I pointed out to a driver of a wet oil leak coming out the 66. He had a look around inside, then was on the radio talking to someone for a few mins and set off once the signal changed. I bet that loco still got there lol.
Great video as ever! I just wanted to say I really appreciate that you always just crack on, straight into the video with no bs, it's very refreshing! Keep it up and have a great day :)
I remember reading a story one time about back when US railroads had pretty much made the switch to Diesels, but a couple of RRs were holding out against the tide. One, I believe the Pennsylvania RR had been required to buy some Diesels from EMD (F series A models) in order to participate in a multi-road named passenger express train (think TEE). It failed, as passenger trains were wont to do at the time and the locos were just sitting there. The CEO, who was the main anti-steam holdout, told his crew to find some route where the Diesels could make it as a day trip and run them til they broke and then dump them, then went on to order another 50 new steam locomotives, which were going at fire-sale rates by now. A year or so later, at a board meeting, he asked his crew how long the Diesels had run. The member answered "Theyre still running." The CEO said "What, I didnt authorize any maintenance!" "We havent done any maintenance we just put Diesel into them." "But a steam engine would have needed several.... Oh. Um. Ahem. Quick, cancel that steam order!"
that would be a false story, the PRR was always an experimental railroad, they were more just loyal customers to their loco manufacturer (Baldwin) more then anything else, when Baldwin offered it's own Diesels* the PRR was pretty happy to switch (especially since it was one small step in reducing their nightmare burcracy) *to be fair, Baldwin Diesels were actually pretty damn good runners, it's just that once you actually did have to do maintenance on them that they became a pain to work with, but that was more on Management being idiots then anything the engineers behind the designs did.
Look at the piece of track at 15.10 it's propper crushed/warped I'm surprised nothing derailed there! Great video of the sheds and all other early 1960s 70s loco's 😎
Great video, very informative thank you. I believe the freight operating companies cheaped out on the specification regarding driver comfort features, however.
This is an excellent presentation. Especially after just reading the "One Little Critter Leads to 500 Big Non-Critters!" article in the October 2022 issue of Trains Magazine.
i have seen those loco's on so many trainspotting videos i have watched over the years and i never knew they were a US design. I thought the UK was like the king of railway design, at least inside their own networks. Bet it was a sad day for british loco engineers seeing their fairly new machines ditched hard for imports, now rotting away in sidings somewhere
Ruairidh, Are these clips too early in history to showcase Distributed Power operations in the UK, or has that still not caught on? Are all UK wagons fitted with Multiple Unit Control cables to facilitate Distributed Power Ops? (One Push, One Pull)
Class 66s and 59s may look alike to each other but it’s the horn that’s sound different and I’ve seen a lot of 66s with EWS and freightliner and DRS which of course that applies also to the 59s
@@davidty2006 which also scales just how much more powerful American Steam engines were. The 9Fs for all the fuss only matched the power of PRR K4 Pacifics (despite having far more driving wheels) in the US if you wanted to pull a really heavy train you went articulated th-cam.com/video/0o8uWTgekpU/w-d-xo.html
@@davidty2006 first off, it was 4-12-2 not 4-12-4, if your refering to the 9000 class and not just butchering Articulated engines, Articulated engines separate each axle (ex, the challenger in that video, is known as a 4-6-6-4 because it has two sets of 6 driving wheels) and to answer your question as to why they exist, as you saw in the video that was a very long and heavy train going up a hill that is not too dissimilar to Lickney incline.
20:47 this is an important point, it's the reason for the upcoming replacement of the 66s with new bi-mode Class 99s. As a younger railfan 66s are pretty much the only locomotives I've seen on the network, so it'll be a shame to see them go, but the reasons are definitely understandable.
I doubt they'll be going *anywhere*, anytime soon. With a diesel fleet, an operator's free to purchase fuel at global spot prices. With electric, they're locked into whatever a national network can take them for! So you can dismiss PR posturing for what it is - the UK power network is already stretched to its limits, and consumers don't want to pay even more because rail traffic is tapping from the same power stations - b/c the UK as declined to maintain its hydrocarbon generating capacity, and declined to stay current on nuclear.
99s are not replacing 66s, they are going to be used on routes where they can be used effectively, GBRf are still seeking more 66s and importing them from Europe whenever they become available. 66s are now being looked at for conversion to bi-mode locomotives themselves including the installation of engines capable of using diesel and hydrogen as fuel.
I should also add, that because the supply of 66s from Europe is getting tight, GBRf are now taking old class 56 bodyshells, stripping them out, and installing class 66 mechanicals and electronics in a total rebuild programme. In effect turning them into 66s. They are classed as 69. A second company is considering doing the same as their 56s wear out.
Just ignore how BR was funded. BR was only allowed to order 60 Class 56s in the first batch (funding authorised by the UK government in 1974) and then were allowed to order a 2nd batch of 75 several years later. The 1st 30, ie those built in Romania, were also problematic for the unions.
See, there is life outside London and the underground. Very interesting video with lots of information although you skipped over the class 60, and super 60's.More of the same please.
The class 59 was basically the prototype class 66 ,both being based on the sd40 . EWS had a anti British built policy,even though the class 60 was a good product,it was side lined in favour of American built locomotives. No surprise there as EWS was an American company. A few years ago electro motive was taken over by another company, and class 66 construction was stopped . The class 66 is arguably one of the most successful European freight locomotives of all time , and many of them operate across Europe in many countries,but no more will be built.
Major mistake saying the EMD 16v645 prime mover only made 1000 horsepower, the most modern versions make up to 3000 horsepower. I'm pretty the SW 1001 used either an 8 cylinder 645 series engine.
Very interesting and informative video. However, I'm surprised several details were omitted. Fastline ordered 5 locos (301-305), along with the aforementioned DB (/0), FL (/5), GBRf (/7), and DRS (/4) orders. No final figures of the orders were given. No mention of 59201 or 66779's bells like 59001. No mention of the ceremony of 779 being the last 66 to be built for the uk due to emissions standards, or that GBRf are continuing to import locos, or that EWS made EuroCargoRail and exported a load of the 66s to europe for that (and DB Cargo moved a load to Poland too). Also surprised at the ignoring of the 67s in this video. Yeah I know another video is on them, but a small mention here would've been good because they use the same engines (and the 69s too).
The 67s I think were an Alstom product with an EMD prime mover. For the 69s there is a nice long presentation by Bob Tiller, the engineering director for GBRf, about the rebuild program that's been uploaded to TH-cam
Remember seeing first 66 arrive at Immingham , we ended up with quite a few at IMM , thought they were very cheaply made , loads of complaints from drivers . Went on quite few test runs they were incredibly noisy but could stand lots of abuse , you could pull 7'000 amps for ages and nothing went bang , did have traction motor flash over at 70mph with class 4 empty coal behind
Very difficult to tell a 59 and 66 apart as since EWS became DB the numbers are very small mind so are a 68 and 88 if you can't see the top!Another passenger train the 66 has worked is the Scottish sleeper and I have had them on the Fort William bit a few times usually backing up a 73 and I think that the 73 was providing hotel power only.
i remember seeing class 59 or class 66 i dont know exactly but it was in poland when i was travelling to wroclaw and i thought its from germany without knowing its actually from british railway thank you for this information now i know better about it
The American is undoubtly know how to make a good & reliable locomotive! Here in Indonesia, The ISR (Indonesia State Railway) still have a fleet of 100 plus 1970's build GE U18C, and they're still going strong!!!
What a surprise; British labor unions didn't want to operate them. If they could be used successfully in an American summer in the desert, and they were, there's no reason they couldn't run in the very temperate zone of the UK
The bodies & cabs have no resemblance to a stock SD40-2 due to our rather restricted loading gauge. They look rather like a portable industrial building: Utilitarian. ASLEF did have a point regarding the poor ventilation of the cab in summer. A SPAD is a very serious matter. Cold-starting a Class 37 vs a 66 involves clouds of fumes that would make anyone want to spew their last meal & 15 minutes of grouchiness before it warms through. Think of older person waking up & before their first mug of tea/coffee. I think that back in the day when they had full work they were never switched off A '66 produces a baby''s fart of smoke & it is zinging away steadily a minute after pressing the button. I haven't seen a class 66 rolling coal yet. We call it 'clag' in the UK.
@@NJPurling American Diesel locomotives never really roll coal/clag, the only thing I can think of was with the famous first gen Diesels the ALCO PAs, and that was when they engaged their turbos (because early fuel mixture tech wasn't as sophisticated as it is now that it took a minute for the turbocharger to work properly)
…your content always interesting & informational RMV👍 …in recent days the TH-cam notifications screen showings have become limited to showing only 5 notifications at any one time only & will not scroll up or down to show new, recent & cumulative notifications 🧐🤨🤔 …not being able to scroll to see more than 5 notifications is quite limiting for me to know about or see new content from your channel or any other channel as well RMV 👀…being TH-cam seems to not show how to contact TH-cam about stuff like this perhaps you may be aware of or know how to bring this problem to Google / TH-cam attention RMV …any assistance greatly appreciated as I do not want to miss your new content / vids 🫤
"Highly inefficient as it would require the use of more then one locomitve to pull a train" *Stares out the window here in the states to watch every train being hauled by 3-5 locomotives*
haha i thought the same thing, usually its brits telling american narrators they pronounced "darstumforshirellynly" wrong but we get to correct "wilksbury" haha
hi. great video.i think if the clas56s were pampered a bit more there would not be so many breakdowns.proper engine maintenance is essential weather its loco or motor lawn mower.
On the other hand better design means it doesn't need any pampering, and less maintenance. I think that's part of what availability figures are about, with time out of traffic for maintenance
I don't think those 2 SW1001s (Foster Yeoman 44 and Hanson Aggregates 120) have TOPS numbers, since they're confined to the quarry sites they were assigned to.
The engine(s) in question are not responsible for faulty track work, failure of signage or weather related accidents, yet both of you, Ritchie and Rory, seem bound to blame the engines for them. The lack of AC in the cab is directly the fault of a management decision NOT the engine. The problem with BR design in general can be placed directly at the foot of "short haul mentality" compounded by dim witted management and dumber than a box of rocks politicians!
In mainland Europe (mainly in the west) the class 66 is slowly phased out. Because most of the lines are electrified. Their are plenty multi current locomotive available thanks to lease companies. Diesel is expensive. Operators prefer to use a small shunting locomotive for the last-mile instead. And the dual mode locomotive is rising.
I always felt that British engineering has the talent but lacked the political support which is a crying shame. There's zero reason to be importing traction and rolling stock to the country that invented railways. It's ridiculous. Love the 66 - it's built right, looks great (sounds awesome!) but with a bit more support the British manufacturing industry could be doing a whole lot more today.
Like English Electric and Clayton.
British Rail industry could have also succeeded working with other European railways, but BR had the "not invented here, so we aren't investing in it". Like the German folding door design (has a mechanism which means doors will slam and lock themselves, meaning guards did not need to check doors) somthing most European railways use, but BR didn't.
From the 1950s to 1980s Australia's railways operated a health mix of English Electric, EMD and Alco locomotives, so it offers a good comparison between EE and EMD. When the EMD 645 power plant entered service in the late 1960s on the first 3000hp locomotives, the same engine in Class 59s and SD40s, English Electric's market share in Australia was under threat and never recovered. The 645 engine was just a superior product for power and reliability compared its EE 12CSVT counterpart; it's been installed on brand new locos built in the 21st century for Australian companies.
lack of political support, hell just look at brexit happening despite vocal dissent from industries where import/export is very important. Few things are made all in-house but instead use components built by others, either off the shelf designs or under contract, and having access to europe as a customer and supplier was very useful. Yet it got pushed through regardless with those concerns ignored entirely. This isn't so much a criticism of brexit as a concept but rather the politics around it being very much part of the pattern of anti-manufacturing.
Personally think it's Fine we import engines, EMD make damn good prime-movers, but there really could be some support for a domestic manufacturing of freight locomotives using imported prime-movers.
@@KerbalRocketry We all wanted brexit because we want it built ‘in house’. And it was ‘pushed through’ because it was voted for
I remember going on holiday to the US one year, and seeing an SD40 for the first time, and was in awe that one of our most durable goods engines was based off that beast! That thing was MASSIVE! Then my friend told me that it was SMALL compared to other goods engines! I was amazed when I saw some of the other engines, such as the ACs and newer SDs.
EMD til I die, babeee
Benefits of space coupled with higher clearances and loading gauges. When it works properly, the American system can haul around truly staggering amounts of freight. It's also cheaper and faster to unload a container ship at LA, stick those onto a train, and send that train across the entirety of America to an East Coast port like Newark or Norfolk than it is to use the Panama Canal (assuming the ship can fit), nevermind sail all the way around South America.
@@jimmyseaver3647 I think part of it is it can be moved much faster by train than ship, plus the freight will likely end up closer to its end destination in most cases
@@R4baDader Yur problem, dude: EMD died before you!
@@jimmyseaver3647 _"When it works properly, the American system can haul around truly staggering amounts of freight."_
*Australia:* hold my beer Mate...
I drive class 66. Even though they do have their faults, they are superb pullers. Powerful and reliable. In my top three of locos driven.
That's EMD for ya.
UK trainspotters refer to 66s as "sheds" due to the shape of the roof.
A classic example of getting the basic design right - as Stanier did with the LMS Black 5s in the 1930s.
They were actually based upon the Clyde-EMD NSWSRA 81 class loco's and the Australian National BL-V/Line G class
@@gregrudd6983 ??? Where did you get that? The 66 is based on the 59, which in turn is based on the SD 40-2. You'll have to explain where in the development strand your kangoroos have something to say.
@@pearlyhumbucker9065 They are a lot of similarities between the 59 and the NSW 81 which was also an SD40-2 derivative If you know your export EMD's Equipment layouts in the machinery spaces are pretty much the same. The cowl is of similar design to the 81. Mind you the 59 didn't need to have the 81's heavy cantilever frame. Which is near SD40-2 strengths. Remember the 81 was EMD's export pin up girl in the early to mid 80's so it was pretty much the design basis for the 59. You seem to also forgotten that the Nohab MY's were actually based upon the Clyde-EMD B class for Vic Railways.
You seem to have also forgotten that in the early 2000's the Clyde/EDI-EMD QR 4000 class was the EMD reference 3'6" gauge design. In fact it would have been an even better loco than the 66's and would have been able to fit the UK loading gauge without too much tinkering.
@@gregrudd6983 Oh well.
It all seems a bit far-fetched to me.
It is certainly true that the locomotives are based on the same original model. But that's about it for the similarities in development.
Apart from the fact that the NSW 81 (edited typing error) is not based on the class 59, but is a further development of the National Class AL, it must also be taken into account that the adaptation to the British clearance gauge did not just mean a bit of tinkering, after all, the 59 is about 30 cm narrower, lower by the same amount and also has a pointed roof.
To bring the MY Bulldog Nose as an example is really not very nice. On the one hand you deny Clyde the ability to develop locomotives, on the other hand you should know that the MY cannot and must not be used freely in Europe because of its dimensions.
But anyway. It was nice to read some anti-nationalistic derivations of the development of the 66, even if they are wrong. In any case, they are fun.....
@@pearlyhumbucker9065 for starters there is no NSW 61 class. What is even more far fetched is the idea that EMD itself had no idea of what its licencees did seeing that EMD itself had final sign off on the designs of all it's licencees. My point is the 59 was not a the clean sheet design UK railfans think it was. The whole concept in terms of machinery layouts was proven with the 81 the issue was the loading gauge which forced the deletion of niceties like dynamic braking, the heavy cantilever frame and a different cowl design. If the UK loading gauge could have taken it they would have taken the 81 lock stock barrel (purchased through EMD of course) with the 58 control layout in lieu of the AAR control stand. Nothing nationalist in what I said licencees share IP between themselves and the parent. It happened in passenger rolling stock all the time where "The Budd Company" and its licencees all over the world shared knowledge quite often until Budd fell over in the 80's.
Thank you. Surely 66779 deserved a special mention as the last example of the class and it's iconic name - Evening Star.
My Dad used to take me to Hayes & Harlington Railway Station when I was a kid back in the 80s/90s. The Class 59 in Yeoman livery was always a welcome spot. You could tell it was a 59 from miles away, as the intensity of their headlights was way greater than any of the British-built locomotives.
Luckily, I still have plenty of VHS footage, and photographs that he took from there.
Digitize those videos!
@@kristoffermangila I will one day 😂
@@dangerousandy
Soon.
Gotta hand it to EMD, they make a damn fine product. Many of our licence built EMD locos here in Australia are still in revenue service today forty to seventy years after their introduction.
Yup, good old A, B, S, classes (and the NSW equivalents) but to name a few!
Even in North America there are still many 75+ year old EMD products in regular service.
Now part of Progress Rail ...I always loved the sound of an EMD locomotive winding the engine,. Here in "Murica" GE dominates the freight locomotive market..with their GEVO series.
They aren't what they used to be. The last time EMD built anything reliable in the US, we were still bombing the Ho Chi Minh trail. Foamers will deny that vehemently, however, take it from a locomotive engineer: GE makes the best units around, and have since the 1980's.
@@michlo3393 Lucky we have units from when they were still making good stuff! 😎
The Class 59/1 and 59/2 had improved headlights as the original Class 59/0 had caused problems for drivers of approaching trains.
How are the names, endeavor, challenger, and enterprise, the exact names nasa space shuttles would have decades later?
@@davidt8087My brother in christ, you sound like you would mistake the RMS Lusitania for the RMS Titanic
@@davidt8087it's almost like the space shuttles were already a thing at the time...
@@harrimanfox8961 I don't know why I even asked that question or what I meant by it. Was there another comment about it or was there something about space shuttles in this video?
How on Earth did I end up here? I stayed to watch the entire video despite not really being that interested in rail. The logistics aspect of the story is what capture me and kept me in place. Thank you for the great work and the watch!
another absolutely fascinating docu, especially since they hail from my side of the Pond. Amazing how the tin can be reworked to turn a classic american loco like the EM 40 into a thoroughly English looking power unit.
In Germany there is another popular variant of the Class 66: Class 77, which adds an AC to the drivers cab. Not sure about the other changes made from the original Class 66 design.
they also have a 5th door to better access the engine room
The 5th door is to do with the “low emission” version making it extremely difficult to walk from the no.2 cross corridor to the non-walk through side of the engine room. Therefore they have the extra door added. There are quite a few in the UK.
The European 66s have a different cab layout to the UK batches, which was implemented into the last GBRf batches. 734, 747-779, 793-onwards have the revised cab layout.
The class 77 is pretty much a class 66/9 thus being the most modern variant. The class 77 is just the way they are numbered, when these locomotives came to germany from France many were renumbered to 266 like the other class 66 in germany.
The Class 77 can stock less fuel, it has better Emissions and an proper AC.
@@domi7007 fuel is the same, 6400ltr
Minor note.
SW1001' prime mover(diesel engine) is an 8 cylinder 645 engine. The SW1001 is basically a small American yard switcher locomotive. The cab and frame can be reduced to fit into small spaces.
The majority of accidents with class 66s were due to 3rd party issues, as for your examples - Great Heck was a driver slipping onto the track and derailing a passenger train, Slochd was badly maintained track (due to snow and ice buildup) and Loch Treig was a landslip. I don't thhink you can decry a class for those incidents.
"Land Rover became trapped on the line at Great Heck". That case was decided in the courts as negligence, by the car driver, and not the fault of the railway system. The fuel efficiency of turbo-charged two stroke Diesel engines is legendary. They are used in large container ships. Hence the replacement of Classes 58 and 60. Electric locomotives need overhead wires to the dock-side, which is incompatibele with loading containers by overhead crane.
I love your videos, especially about rail and transport and what not, your videos are unparalleled when it comes to pure information, very good work keep it up
they make excellent podcasts when converted to audio only so you can listen to them on the move.
We had Ameican built locomotives in the 1890s on the GNR, GCR and MR to name but 3 railways that used them. This was due to a lack of capacity in UK engines builders. The 2-6-0 2501 Class for the MR were built by Baldwin and introduced in 1899 with the last 3 being withdrawn in 1914. The MR also had 10 2-6-0 2511 Class built for them by the Schenectady Locomotive Works, these were also introduced in 1899, with last example lasting until 1915. The GCR had 20 Class 15 2-6-0 locomotives built in 1899 by Baldwin, but I've not found any records of how long they lasted in service. The GNR had 20 Class H1 2-6-0 locomotives built by Baldwin between 1899 and 1900, the last of which was withdrawn from service in 1915 whilst working in France. Many of the boikers of the GNR locomotives went on to work as stationary boilers. So the use of American locomotives is much older than given here, although the SR's use of the USA Dock Shunters is probably the most famous usage.
There was a Shay used at Bilston Steelworks in Staffordshire. Sorry if I'm telling you something you already know.
@@jerribee1 learned something new. Thanks.
This is the modern version of the 'little engine that could'. True its revolutionised rail freight in the UK and some parts of Europe, but this unit is nothing compared to what the USA is using on their metals. And I'm saying this as a Brit! But for our infrastructure this is more or less as big as we can go. Thankyou to our friends across the pond for making this little beast available to us.
Great documentary! The SD40-2 was one of the most numerous and successful locomotives of all time on American railroads, and it's really interesting to hear that the machinery was adapted to fit in the English loading gauge. Quite a story to hear how it eventually became a widely used locomotive on British railways. A minor correction at 4:09, the EMD SW1000/1001 locomotives rated 1000HP have an 8-cylinder 645E engine (Roots-blown, not turbocharged), not 16-cylinder as stated.
One thing that is never mentioned when talking about the class 59/66 is that, in order for the locos to be able to be used in the UK, not only did they have to reduce the size they also had to take 50 tons off the weight. The American SD40-2s and SD70s weigh in at around 400,000 ibs (200 US tons). This would have a profound effect on noise and heat suppression. The cab on the SD70 is known as the "Comfort cab" and would be isolated from the frame and engine. The reliability of these locos comes from their use in the US where they have to haul loads, sometimes up to 15,000 US tons, up gradients of 1:45 for many miles (Sacramento to Donner Pass is almost 60 miles of 2.7%!). I love the sound of the 710 at full throttle with NO muffler.
Well, this was interesting timing. Just yesterday I read an article on the Classes 59 and 66 in the new October issue of Trains magazine here in the US. It's written by the EMD sales manager who was involved with the development and purchases of them. Quite interesting detail and nice photos, too. Cheers from Wisconsin!
Interesting fact is that EW&S was a company established by the Wisconsin Central Railroad, hence the similar colour scheme on their locomotives. The former Eesti Raudtee in Estonia was another company of WCR, and there the nature of the Russian broad gauge and generous loading gauge allowed for the use of former UP GE C36-7 and Conrail C30-7 locomotives.
They are apart from Yeomans SW1002 switcher the only locomotives used in Europe which were built primarily for use on the domestic US market, all other equipment sold by EMD, GE, BLH, Alco and MLW as complete locomotives were export models, or they sold prime movers or licenses to build them to European locomotive builders.
It wasn't the engines per se that gave the 59's their performance but the onboard traction computers that made the engine so powerful, the other and older engines could likely pull but they slipped dreadfully and only so much sand in the box can pull those chestnuts out the fire but you didn't need sand with the 59 and it could pull with one loco double any comparable diesel could manage and it was all down to slippage. But put a 59 up against an 86 where OHLE was available and the AL's would show who was master of that game hence why the old 86 is still deemed popular despite newer OHLE capable engines.
I'm so glad I got to watch the 86's flying through Warrington pulling containers before they were replaced with cascaded 90's. However. they were always double headed where a single 66 could haul the same amount or more. 86's were a mixed traffic loco. 66's are a heavy type 5 hauler.
The EM2000 computer is an interesting contraption.
Why do they say that double or triple heading is inefficient? when all but one unit can be remote controlled? If there are any problems with traction, just add more units until they total plenty of traction, and unless the unreliability is in the wheels, they can just add more units so as to continue in case one breaks down. Thus there is no real need for reliability or traction or power as all 3 limits can be overwhelmed by sheer numbers of remote controlled units, all controlled by one driver. They only need to be cheap to fix, and plenty of retired parts engines should take care of that.
Remote control should take care of any cab comfort issues as well, since the driver can just drive from whichever type has the most comfortable cab, and any types with any comfort issues can be lined up behind and controlled remotely.
@@alan6832 Because that’s two or three engines which, for 90% of the journey, aren’t needed.
7:06 Now there's time for you. Every time a new train is introduced all the railfans are so excited to see it in action but then quickly get used to it and appreciating it much more when it is withdrawn than when it was in its prime. All those enthusiasts on the platform then and now a lot less find them very interesting and many railfans even dislike the locomotive. In any lineup on platforms these days almost everyone is standing there watching the 66 go by with a straight face as they wait for their heritage service to pass by compared to this footage. Whenever seeing a railtour I always catch any modern traffic that passes as well as it so that I get as much as I can out of what is currently in existence and not only living in the past while the present goes by. Enjoy something while it's there.
Your best mini-documentary yet! Speech pacing & cadence sounded spot-on - to my Canadian ears, at least: a noticeable improvement over some of the earlier examples.
I noticed the spoken audio didn't match the CC data, but the inconsistencies were few and fairly minor.
In fact, the overall audio quality, the "listenability" if you will, was excellent!
Living in western Canada near major yards of both Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways, I think it's safe to say that I've seen a great many EMD SD-40's and SD-40T2 (the 'Tunnel Motors' variant originally developed for the Southern Pacific and Union Pacific in the USA, to address 'breathing problems' and overheating in mountain operations). I had occasion to do 'cab rides' 3 times on the CN, running east from Edmonton to Wainwright and west from Edmonton to Hinton. The lead locomotive on two of the three outings was an SD-40. They were the last of the really noisy and uncomfortable EMD/GMD locomotives made for Canadian service. The advent of the wide cab, or "Canadian Cab" that had become standard by the advent of large-scale serial production of the SD-60's was a real revolution in terms of noise, vibration, and cab air quality & temperature. Given the extremes of weather and distance that's usual here, this was a welcome innovation. The other thing the SD-40's became known for was reliability and pulling power - they often ran in Multiple Unit sets of 4 or 5 units on some of the large dedicated-one-cargo unit trains, which even then were running up to 100 cars and 12,000+ tons. The CN have, I believe, phased their SD-40's out of mainline service (most are not equipped for DPU or Distributed Power operation), but some can still be seen working as yard power or leading small way freight branch line trains.
I have seen the cab or a UK-destined SD-40, and I'm not surprised that there were complaints. I've wondered more than once if rather than carry forward the original BR Diesel cab layout, it would have been better to "grasp the nettle firmly" and make the change to the larger standard SD-40 cabs, or the "Canadian Cabs" designed for the sD-60's that were nevertheless fitted to late production export model SD-40's. With about 5000 units built, and many still in service on small regional railroads in the USA, there's no doubt that it was a very successful design that many Class 1 railroads operated for decades with 95-97% availability rates. I know that many (most?) UK purists will say that adopting the EMD/GMD standard cab would have been akin to heresy - round tops and round shoulders being a "must have." While this may be true for Bakerloo Line tube trains, there are many freight runs in Britain where there would be no "size problem", and with the late models, the "Comfort cabs" might even have convinced a long time British engineer or conductor that the boxy EMD cab was not _all_ bad :-). Thanks for this interesting presentation.
One issue with the American locomotives on the British rail network is the general loading gauge. The UK's W6 loading gauge which fits most freight routes is about 9' wide by 13' high. American locomotives are more like 10+ feet wide by about 15.5 feet high. It's not so much a political decision as much as American locomotive dimensions just don't fit.
In other news, the 'new' class 69 locos being rebuilt from a class 56 body with upgraded class 66 internals are intended to have extra noise dampening in the cabs. There has been some minor speculation about fitting similar upgrades and sound dampening in class 66 locos.
It wasn't until I was involved in diesel loco maintenance here in Australia that I came to appreciate how EMD had refined their locos over 70 years. Their power plants are not only designed for easy maintenance but also to run at full power for long periods in any conditions. It was unfortunate that Britain was not able to buy some in the 50's and 60's which would have saved a lot of buying unproven and unsuitable products.
I remember Foster Yeoman bringing these into the country .I was driving Aggregate and tarmac tippers at the time so we saw them at the Isle of Grain terminal. I still like the old class 37 locos great classic British machines.
May I suggest the Swiss Federal Railways Re 460 or the EMD AEM-7 in Amtrak service as topics for future videos?
It is funny how sometimes thoughts come together like a jigsaw puzzle. When you first mentioned Yeoman, I thought "wait, I have heard that name before" (I am not from the UK, which reduces the odds of being familiar with that name). Then you mention one of the Class 59s being named Yeoman Highlander, and later that it operated in Germany (where I am from) for a while, and then it just struck me. I remember back in the day seeing a locomotive which looked and sounded* completely different from what I was used to and learned that it was the "Yeoman Highlander" from the UK". And so the circle closes.
* Diesel-Electric was not a thing in western Germany, as all major Diesel locomotive classes built after World War 2 in Western Germany were Diesel-Hydraulic driven. The German Democratic Republic had Soviet-built Diesel-Electrics, which operated in the entire country after re-unification. but still it was something rather uncommon in the western part of the country.
Very informative video, but 10:30 show box tipplers being loaded when the video comments about the supply of coal to various power stations. However, the wagons that were being loaded were in fact loaded by ilmenite ore - a mineral containing titanium dioxide - and used in the formulation of paints. The ilmenite tipplers were loaded at Immingham Docks and as the tipplers were unfitted were conveyed in class 9 unfitted freight trains to the British Tioxide plant at nearby Grimsby. At the time, these wagons were the only unfitted rolling stock with dispensation to run over the local rail network . In the early 2000s the British Tioxide plant was being run down and was finally closed. Most of their tippler wagons found further use with British Steel at Scunthorpe. To my knowledge the class 66 were never used to haul the wagons .
Thank you this informative vid. I had the honor (?) of making the ocean transport contract for the first 4 FY locos with EMD. At 7:00 minutes in, you have a short clip of the 59's quayside, with the beige ship's gear in the background. Your esteemed rail author, Geoffrey Allen, wrote a book entitled The Yeoman 59s, which I have somewhere. In it he stated that the choice of vessel to transport these locos was suspect, due to its size. Needless to say, that was upsetting. Then a US rail magazine writer directly quoted Allen's comments about the ship as if they were his own. Plagarism. I got over it, and the company that transported the first 59s probably carried the bulk of the 66s as well. EMD privately told me they had to shift the production from Lagrange to London so that the origin of the locomotives was from a Commonwealth country. And I would like to add my condolences on the passing of The Queen.
probably already mentioned below, but since 2016 class 66s see regular use supporting Class 73s on the Caledonian Sleeper north of Edinburgh, which has portions to/from Fort William, Inverness and Aberdeen. The Class 73s providing the train heating and anything else the 66s cannot provide.
Easy maintenance and good reliability has always been the strong point of EMD locomotives, proved by the fact that some members of class 55 in Belgium equipped with EMD prime movers are still going strong after 60 years of service still with the original diesel engine installed.
Except for the SD-50 and SD-90 series, those apparently were terrible. I haven't heard the best things about the new ProgressRail units either. Other than that, EMD units are fantastic.
I have to say it was fun hearing someone British try to pronounce American railroad names. Makes me feel better about how much I mangle the names of Welsh railways.
Thank you! :-) Yes, in the early 2000s, the Class 66 in various liveries seemed to dominate rail freight traffic here in the Netherlands. However, they seem largely replaced by poly-current electric locomotives of German origin: German classes 189 (even in pairs for the iron ore trains), 186 and more recently 193. (My impression, not even opinion!)
You still see them pulling cement trains and such. Especially on smaller rail lines. But you are right basically all of the main freight is pulled by 189/186 nowadays
I never thought I'd be watching a video praising US trains, but here we go. Learned something new today!
Overall a very well presented and informative piece which I enjoyed.
It's worth noting the class 60s were largely withdrawn because of software and reliability issues.
The cost of keeping them was prohibitive and some have been kept in service as they offer a higher T.E than the class 66 so are used on some traffic during poor weather where its been noted the 66s struggled.
Can't wait to watch this, fascinating subject the history of these.
Thanks for making it.
I worked in an office by the tracks in Rainham, Essex in 1985. I remember the Class 59s pulling Yeoman aggregate trains. At other times, two Class 37s were required. IT is a shame British engineering was not up to the job.
Always nice to see the Steve Dunn class 66 at work. Great video such a wonderful flood of information
Iv been watching the same channel for two days it's great stuff 👍👍👍
Also in the list of American builts there were the 5 Alco built switchers used by the Steel Company of Wales, two of which are now at Nene Valley
We used to call the Alco switchers "clankers," due to all the mechanical racket that came out of their inline-six cylinder engines.
So, even the UK-built class 56s delivered availability of only 40-60%! I never realised it was as tragically dire as that. What a wretched indictment of what our nation had become! Imagine buying a new car and finding that you could only use it three days a week because of faults and failures requiring workshop service. It's unimaginable. And this from a nation who once built and exported half the railway equipment in the world.
I know most BR loco's were worse, but he starts off saying the 59 had a 99% availability and later on says it had a 95% availability...
@@alstonofalltrades3142 I was talking about the 56s. The 59s' 95-99% availability would have been commensurate with routine maintenance rather than routine failure.
@@davidstewart4570 I know you was on about the 56's and I also don't want to sound like an arse to someone providing free content. It's just we need to get to the bottom of reliability with the right figures for all locos and put them into context. The Class 60 was to be built to meet a 95% availability, which was good for the time but soon overtaken. I know a lot less about other loco's availability and it's own time frame. It could also be they built a loco that was 20% less reliable than the best at half the cost which is ace in a economical way, whether this is the case with many BR and other countries loco's I don't know but would like to.
I hate to see my brother railroad fans in the UK beating themselves up. I think that the success of GM’s design when adapted for the UK was a direct result of the fact that so many thousands of mechanically similar locomotives had been built for US railroads. The SD (three axles per truck) and GP (four axles) versions had been thoroughly debugged by running successfully under all of the climate conditions prevailing in the US from the snow of Maine to the deserts of Arizona. American railroads are also not known to lavish money on maintenance, to put it mildly. Motive power is expected to take abuse and keep on running.
@@bobjohnston8316 Thanks man for the comments. I don't beat myself up about it. They sound similar to some of the American movies with trains I watched growing up. The 66 is very reliable and very cost effective to boot. I never thought about the weather but you guys have been hauling heavy freight long distances for a long time in large amounts. Stands to reason a better design would come out of that. Every nation has the things they got right. The Japanese proved faster trains could keep the railways competitive in the age of the plane and car. French hold the fastest rail wheel record. We were the first to get active tilt and prove it worked with the APT-E, Concept was proved and then messed up with lack of management of the APT-P for a time. But they sold the patents hence they were still valuable. More countries who did stuff that I have yet to learn I'm sure.
Just the other day I pointed out to a driver of a wet oil leak coming out the 66. He had a look around inside, then was on the radio talking to someone for a few mins and set off once the signal changed. I bet that loco still got there lol.
Brilliant uk rail video as always! Keep them coming
Great video as ever! I just wanted to say I really appreciate that you always just crack on, straight into the video with no bs, it's very refreshing! Keep it up and have a great day :)
I remember reading a story one time about back when US railroads had pretty much made the switch to Diesels, but a couple of RRs were holding out against the tide. One, I believe the Pennsylvania RR had been required to buy some Diesels from EMD (F series A models) in order to participate in a multi-road named passenger express train (think TEE). It failed, as passenger trains were wont to do at the time and the locos were just sitting there. The CEO, who was the main anti-steam holdout, told his crew to find some route where the Diesels could make it as a day trip and run them til they broke and then dump them, then went on to order another 50 new steam locomotives, which were going at fire-sale rates by now.
A year or so later, at a board meeting, he asked his crew how long the Diesels had run. The member answered "Theyre still running." The CEO said "What, I didnt authorize any maintenance!" "We havent done any maintenance we just put Diesel into them." "But a steam engine would have needed several.... Oh. Um. Ahem. Quick, cancel that steam order!"
that would be a false story, the PRR was always an experimental railroad, they were more just loyal customers to their loco manufacturer (Baldwin) more then anything else, when Baldwin offered it's own Diesels* the PRR was pretty happy to switch (especially since it was one small step in reducing their nightmare burcracy)
*to be fair, Baldwin Diesels were actually pretty damn good runners, it's just that once you actually did have to do maintenance on them that they became a pain to work with, but that was more on Management being idiots then anything the engineers behind the designs did.
Look at the piece of track at 15.10 it's propper crushed/warped
I'm surprised nothing derailed there! Great video of the sheds and all other early 1960s 70s loco's 😎
22:55
Driver: Taking a holiday by the lake.
Boss: 👍🏻
Great video, very informative thank you. I believe the freight operating companies cheaped out on the specification regarding driver comfort features, however.
This is an excellent presentation. Especially after just reading the "One Little Critter Leads to 500 Big Non-Critters!" article in the October 2022 issue of Trains Magazine.
Another great video. I always look forward to your well researched rail videos.Thank you for all your hard work put into these videos.
Fantastic units! EMD built great locomotives
i have seen those loco's on so many trainspotting videos i have watched over the years and i never knew they were a US design. I thought the UK was like the king of railway design, at least inside their own networks. Bet it was a sad day for british loco engineers seeing their fairly new machines ditched hard for imports, now rotting away in sidings somewhere
great train video
Ruairidh,
Are these clips too early in history to showcase Distributed Power operations in the UK, or has that still not caught on?
Are all UK wagons fitted with Multiple Unit Control cables to facilitate Distributed Power Ops?
(One Push, One Pull)
Interesting video! Thumbs Up
All the best from Romania
Andrew
Such an interesting video. ALCO Baldwin also built steam and diesel locomotives for the USSR in mid-1940's.
That was part of Lend/Lease for WWII wasn't it??
@@SMichaelDeHart not sure of it, sorry. Speaking of steam locomotives, though, it is absolutely right.
@@runoflife87 indeed, thank ya!
Class 66s and 59s may look alike to each other but it’s the horn that’s sound different and I’ve seen a lot of 66s with EWS and freightliner and DRS which of course that applies also to the 59s
The 59s are still pulling 4800 tonne stone trains on a daily basis past my village on the GWR, Merehead to Acton.
Great video, thanks 👍
Thats competing with the 9F right there.
@@davidty2006 which also scales just how much more powerful American Steam engines were. The 9Fs for all the fuss only matched the power of PRR K4 Pacifics (despite having far more driving wheels) in the US if you wanted to pull a really heavy train you went articulated th-cam.com/video/0o8uWTgekpU/w-d-xo.html
@@themanformerlyknownascomme777 That doesn't really explain the massive 4-12-4's that existed in the US
@@davidty2006 first off, it was 4-12-2 not 4-12-4, if your refering to the 9000 class and not just butchering Articulated engines, Articulated engines separate each axle (ex, the challenger in that video, is known as a 4-6-6-4 because it has two sets of 6 driving wheels) and to answer your question as to why they exist, as you saw in the video that was a very long and heavy train going up a hill that is not too dissimilar to Lickney incline.
20:47 this is an important point, it's the reason for the upcoming replacement of the 66s with new bi-mode Class 99s. As a younger railfan 66s are pretty much the only locomotives I've seen on the network, so it'll be a shame to see them go, but the reasons are definitely understandable.
I doubt they'll be going *anywhere*, anytime soon. With a diesel fleet, an operator's free to purchase fuel at global spot prices. With electric, they're locked into whatever a national network can take them for! So you can dismiss PR posturing for what it is - the UK power network is already stretched to its limits, and consumers don't want to pay even more because rail traffic is tapping from the same power stations - b/c the UK as declined to maintain its hydrocarbon generating capacity, and declined to stay current on nuclear.
99s are not replacing 66s, they are going to be used on routes where they can be used effectively, GBRf are still seeking more 66s and importing them from Europe whenever they become available. 66s are now being looked at for conversion to bi-mode locomotives themselves including the installation of engines capable of using diesel and hydrogen as fuel.
I should also add, that because the supply of 66s from Europe is getting tight, GBRf are now taking old class 56 bodyshells, stripping them out, and installing class 66 mechanicals and electronics in a total rebuild programme. In effect turning them into 66s. They are classed as 69. A second company is considering doing the same as their 56s wear out.
Just ignore how BR was funded. BR was only allowed to order 60 Class 56s in the first batch (funding authorised by the UK government in 1974) and then were allowed to order a 2nd batch of 75 several years later. The 1st 30, ie those built in Romania, were also problematic for the unions.
Seems like an excellent locomotive series. The problems here seem to be more with management.
See, there is life outside London and the underground. Very interesting video with lots of information although you skipped over the class 60, and super 60's.More of the same please.
The class 59 was basically the prototype class 66 ,both being based on the sd40 . EWS had a anti British built policy,even though the class 60 was a good product,it was side lined in favour of American built locomotives. No surprise there as EWS was an American company. A few years ago electro motive was taken over by another company, and class 66 construction was stopped . The class 66 is arguably one of the most successful European freight locomotives of all time , and many of them operate across Europe in many countries,but no more will be built.
This freight loco has been a revolution. Looked forwards to this video and enjoyed it very much.
And to think it all started by an American shunter in a quarry...
A great presentation, marred only by pronunciation of a couple of US names - Rio Grande and Wilkes-Barre. In both cases the trailing E's are silent.
Actually, the 'e' in Grande is pronounced as the 'a' in “hay”.
The great thing about a 66 is that they’re really quite simple. A little crude but generally reliable and plenty of grunt.
American railroading in a nutshell
@@andrewreynolds4949 Can also be used to describe American Engineering in general
@@mrspandel5737 In this particular case perhaps. Nowadays not so much
Where are your first and last video clips recorded? They remind me of my local Lichfield Trent Valley.....
Those SW1001's must have put out quite the pleasant sound.
Great video as always quick note 56s were built in crewe brel too. Last block of them
Major mistake saying the EMD 16v645 prime mover only made 1000 horsepower, the most modern versions make up to 3000 horsepower. I'm pretty the SW 1001 used either an 8 cylinder 645 series engine.
remember being sat outside of a cafe in Rudesheim on theRhine river in Germany and I saw an EWS train pass by heading south !!
Very interesting and informative video. However, I'm surprised several details were omitted.
Fastline ordered 5 locos (301-305), along with the aforementioned DB (/0), FL (/5), GBRf (/7), and DRS (/4) orders.
No final figures of the orders were given.
No mention of 59201 or 66779's bells like 59001.
No mention of the ceremony of 779 being the last 66 to be built for the uk due to emissions standards, or that GBRf are continuing to import locos, or that EWS made EuroCargoRail and exported a load of the 66s to europe for that (and DB Cargo moved a load to Poland too).
Also surprised at the ignoring of the 67s in this video. Yeah I know another video is on them, but a small mention here would've been good because they use the same engines (and the 69s too).
I suspect that the 67s and 69s have enough history (Wikipedia or otherwise) to deserve their own videos.
The 67s I think were an Alstom product with an EMD prime mover. For the 69s there is a nice long presentation by Bob Tiller, the engineering director for GBRf, about the rebuild program that's been uploaded to TH-cam
Remember seeing first 66 arrive at Immingham , we ended up with quite a few at IMM , thought they were very cheaply made , loads of complaints from drivers . Went on quite few test runs they were incredibly noisy but could stand lots of abuse , you could pull 7'000 amps for ages and nothing went bang , did have traction motor flash over at 70mph with class 4 empty coal behind
Very difficult to tell a 59 and 66 apart as since EWS became DB the numbers are very small mind so are a 68 and 88 if you can't see the top!Another passenger train the 66 has worked is the Scottish sleeper and I have had them on the Fort William bit a few times usually backing up a 73 and I think that the 73 was providing hotel power only.
Easiest way to tell apart a Class 59 and 66 is by looking at the bogies
i remember seeing class 59 or class 66 i dont know exactly but it was in poland when i was travelling to wroclaw and i thought its from germany without knowing its actually from british railway thank you for this information now i know better about it
What was the discovery program you showed?
The American is undoubtly know how to make a good & reliable locomotive! Here in Indonesia, The ISR (Indonesia State Railway) still have a fleet of 100 plus 1970's build GE U18C, and they're still going strong!!!
Informative and well researched video -enjoyed watching!
Absolutely superb and informative.
13:43 Bit of a long shot but does anyone know what station that is?
@ 22:50. If you’re going to have a derailment; you may as well have one in a scenic locale!!
I find it so interesting that MUing smaller locos was seen as a bad thing versus building bigger ones.
What a surprise; British labor unions didn't want to operate them. If they could be used successfully in an American summer in the desert, and they were, there's no reason they couldn't run in the very temperate zone of the UK
Aircon is universal for modern freight units. If you haven’t worked in an unfitted cab on a hot day you really shouldn’t comment.
The bodies & cabs have no resemblance to a stock SD40-2 due to our rather restricted loading gauge. They look rather like a portable industrial building: Utilitarian.
ASLEF did have a point regarding the poor ventilation of the cab in summer. A SPAD is a very serious matter.
Cold-starting a Class 37 vs a 66 involves clouds of fumes that would make anyone want to spew their last meal & 15 minutes of grouchiness before it warms through. Think of older person waking up & before their first mug of tea/coffee. I think that back in the day when they had full work they were never switched off
A '66 produces a baby''s fart of smoke & it is zinging away steadily a minute after pressing the button. I haven't seen a class 66 rolling coal yet. We call it 'clag' in the UK.
@@NJPurling I've seen a 66 spewing out copious amounts of black clag, but TBF it was because of a burst turbo. It was quite a sight, though.
British unions are the last living part of the Jurassic age. Happily, they will be extinct soon.
@@NJPurling American Diesel locomotives never really roll coal/clag, the only thing I can think of was with the famous first gen Diesels the ALCO PAs, and that was when they engaged their turbos (because early fuel mixture tech wasn't as sophisticated as it is now that it took a minute for the turbocharger to work properly)
…your content always interesting & informational RMV👍 …in recent days the TH-cam notifications screen showings have become limited to showing only 5 notifications at any one time only & will not scroll up or down to show new, recent & cumulative notifications 🧐🤨🤔 …not being able to scroll to see more than 5 notifications is quite limiting for me to know about or see new content from your channel or any other channel as well RMV 👀…being TH-cam seems to not show how to contact TH-cam about stuff like this perhaps you may be aware of or know how to bring this problem to Google / TH-cam attention RMV …any assistance greatly appreciated as I do not want to miss your new content / vids 🫤
The safest way to not miss a video is to manually go into his channel and look for new content
"Highly inefficient as it would require the use of more then one locomitve to pull a train"
*Stares out the window here in the states to watch every train being hauled by 3-5 locomotives*
...with DPUs in the middle of the train and sometimes bringing up the rear.
the UK doesn't have trains anywhere near as long as the ones in the US, the average US freight haul is 3x the size of the biggest European trains.
best locos built, worked on them for 20 years
Time to talk about sheds…
Excellent video
To the Narrator……Most E’s on the end of names in the US are silent. Listening to the narrator pronounce Rio Grande & Wilkes Barre got a small chuckle.
You'ld be great at a party
Not necessarily: th-cam.com/video/6a81i_jCrrY/w-d-xo.html
haha i thought the same thing, usually its brits telling american narrators they pronounced "darstumforshirellynly" wrong but we get to correct "wilksbury" haha
Next, the class 08
Please can you do a video on the class 390, I would love that
AGAIN GREAT INFO AND SHOW
hi. great video.i think if the clas56s were pampered a bit more there would not be so many breakdowns.proper engine maintenance is essential weather its loco or motor lawn mower.
On the other hand better design means it doesn't need any pampering, and less maintenance. I think that's part of what availability figures are about, with time out of traffic for maintenance
I wonder what are both the SW1001 TOPS numbers?
I don't think those 2 SW1001s (Foster Yeoman 44 and Hanson Aggregates 120) have TOPS numbers, since they're confined to the quarry sites they were assigned to.
In 2009, a Class 66 was involved in a head-on collision with another freighttrain near Barendrecht (Rotterdam)
The engine(s) in question are not responsible for faulty track work, failure of signage or weather related accidents, yet both of you, Ritchie and Rory, seem bound to blame the engines for them. The lack of AC in the cab is directly the fault of a management decision NOT the engine. The problem with BR design in general can be placed directly at the foot of "short haul mentality" compounded by dim witted management and dumber than a box of rocks politicians!
Interesting seeing the mainland Europe versions, pulling much larger coaches despite their smaller loading gauge
Missed out the sizeable 141/181 class between the 121s and the 071s :p just nit pcikin'.
Also in terms of Irish GMs our Metro Vics, A class (001 class) & C class (CIE 201 Class) were re-engined with GM engines.
Great video. Thank I have learned a lot!
What about 47 & 57 class
In mainland Europe (mainly in the west) the class 66 is slowly phased out. Because most of the lines are electrified. Their are plenty multi current locomotive available thanks to lease companies. Diesel is expensive. Operators prefer to use a small shunting locomotive for the last-mile instead. And the dual mode locomotive is rising.
If only all class 59 and 66s were done out in a variety of classic BR liveries like 66779 and 66789.. they'd look amazing