GB Railfreight has confirmed that it has temporarily withdrawn its entire fleet of Class 69 locomotives, in order to investigate faults being reported by drivers.
RAIL understands that these technical issues include water egress and louder-than-usual engine noise.
It is not believed that hairline cracks have been discovered on any part of the vehicles, as had earlier been speculated on social media.
GBRf currently has six ‘69s’ in service. The diesel locomotives have been converted from Class 56s (including being fitted with engines identical to those installed on Class 66s) by Progress Rail at its workshop in Longport, near Stoke-on-Trent.
An initial contract was for ten locomotives with an option for six more. A GBRf spokesman told RAIL that the withdrawal was not expected to affect the scheduled introduction of the remaining four.
He added: “We have embarked upon a repower programme with Progress Rail to convert our Class 56s to the new EMD Class 69. During their first months of operation, we have become aware of issues with the six locomotives we currently operate.
“In consultation with our maintenance partner, we have decided to withdraw the fleet from service for eight weeks to allow for improvements. The fleet is expected to return to active service in April.”
To read the full story, see RAIL 977
You can subscribe for print/digital access via www.railmagazine.com/subscribe
Comment as guest
Comments
Güntürk Üstün - 02/02/2023 23:22
The Class 69 was developed to fulfil the needs of the rail freight operator GB Railfreight (GBRf), which was unable to purchase additional Class 66 diesel locomotives yet sought more capacity in a similar performance band. The conversion of surplus Class 56s, which were available in sufficient quantity and in good enough condition to make the class a good candidate for the project, proved to be a desirable option, being more affordable than new build locomotives while achieving similar performance to the Class 66 post-conversion. Dr. Güntürk Üstün
Reply as guest
Colin Smith - 04/02/2023 00:29
In the old days it seemed that new engines were introduced right away after delivery and then proceeded to fail on live service. Nowadays it seems that failures both mechanical and now software are just as bad but instead we delay introducing new trains for months or years.
Reply as guest
Maran rusuk - 05/02/2023 11:34
Making silk purse out of a sows ear comes to mind build a new locomotive better idea
Reply as guest
Dave Yewen - 06/02/2023 09:39
They should have put Cummins,caterpillar, or GM enginest hose 710 engines are a load of rubbish
Reply as guest
Colin Meredith - 06/02/2023 17:16
Never really had a good reputation with the G.M.engines,the original 66,s where underpowered and prone to failure, so I don't expect the 69,s will be any better than the 47/57 conversation program.
Reply as guest
Mike - 06/02/2023 17:56
No, sadly, they have not achieved similar performance to the 66s in the area of availability.
Reply as guest
Roger - 14/02/2023 18:40
710 is an EMD (formerly GM) engine.
Reply as guest
Duncan Wilson - 22/03/2023 07:56
This is what you get for going el-cheapo with your loco's. GBRF should have learned from their Class 73's that sticking old and new together rarely works. Even the HST repowering program had to try three different engines before deciding on a replacement. GBRF should have stuck it out and ordered further Class 99;s instead.
Reply as guest
Miles mercer - 15/04/2023 08:12
A blow for me as a rail enthusiast
Reply as guest