Prince WHO ??

[M636C]

In the newswire item of 15 March referring to the locomotives for the British Royal Train, datelined, I note, LaGrange, Illinois (they used to build locomotives there once, didn't they?) the names of the former locomotives are given as Prince William (OK) and Prince Henry (??). While I can hardly claim to be an expert on the British Royal Family, this particular Prince is generally known as Prince HARRY, and so is (or was) the locomotive.

This set me thinking. Could our friends at La Grange have got other things wrong in this news release? Could they have omitted other minor facts of interest to railfans and others reading the news item.

Who built these class 67 locomotives? EMD? No, not exactly. They were built by Alstom in Spain, basically to a French design, which can be supplied with different trucks and different engines. They have been also built for Israel, also with EMD engines, but for Iran with British -built Ruston RK215 engines.

Now Alstom, formerly Alsthom, was a result of collaboration between a locomotive builder Societe' Alsacienne de Construction Mechanique and an electrical company named Thomson (hence Als Thom). Haven't I seen references to that name Thomson on the EMD vs GE thread?.

So these locomotives were not built by General Motors, but by a lineal descendant of, yes: General Electric! Now, of course Alstom and GE (and EMD) are competitors.

But they do have EMD 710 engines, and this one does haul the Royal Train, so given the long history where anyone except EMD could supply British Railways with motive power, EMD deserves to celebrate this milestone.

But EMD, try to get the customer's name right, even if they are usually too polite to correct you!

Peter

[Kozzie]

Hey Pete- (M636C)...I thought the British often used Harry as a familiar version of Henry?

Kozzie

[Mikeygaw]

yes, Kozzie is correct... Harry is a familiar version of Henry... ive heard it used here in the US as well

[Hugh Jampton]

Perhaps,, but his name is Harry.
Sometimes called Harry pothead by us commoners as the result of a scandal a few years ago.

The 67s share a large number of parts with the 66s. I think the main differences are the trucks, the chassis and the bodyshell. Pretty well everything else is the same.

[M636C]

While "Harry" is a familiar form of the name Henry, and was associated with Henry VIII in particular, this prince is formally known as Harry, as Hugh has said. Somewhere in the depths of my memory (he is nineteen, isn't he?) there were references to the use of the name by Henry VIII when the Prince was named.

The equipment in the 67 is as similar to the 66 as can be arranged, with a four axle unit, but in order to be allowed at 125 MPH, the traction motors are mounted on the truck frames and drive through a flexible drive to the axle. This is the only EMD diesel (well, diesel with EMD motors) to have this feature. I think the single prototype GM10B electric also had this feature.

Peter

[oubliette]

The class 67 or JT42HW-HS as it would be known in the US and the class 66 or JT42 CWR are quite similar internally. However if you look at a lot of GM loco's then this is also true internally. Of course not everything is exact and the same parts may be located somewehre else within the body. As a whole though things like compressor air filters, eductor/ejector tubes, spin on filters, air box filters are virtually the same. This makes sense so loco designers do not have to make different parts for different loco's. Of course power unit ratings and trucks may differ but essentially step inside a GM engine room, equipment room and cooler group and they do look very similar.

My understanding is the 67's were built under license in Spain. They are listed in the GM catalogue. We get these loco's on our shed in the UK and they are in all senses a GM loco. Internally again very similar to a class 66, though more head height inside. The driving desk is more central and is a pain when shunting especially for the purposes of buffering up. The Reverser is is vertical compared to horizonatal on the class 66.

The class 66's are all identical apart from some being geared for 65mph and others for 75mph. The UK is still waiting for the modified version of the 66 to arrive as there has been some dispute over the layout. In the UK most loco's apart from class 20's and shunters have a driving cab on each end. The driver can get from one end of the loco to the other by walking through the loco. However apparently in the new design ( to meet new emission regulations) the driver cannot do this as the cooler group is much larger and a door accessing the loco on the side has been added. The new batch designated 66/9's are still awaiting approval.

The class 67 is indeed used sometimes on Royal Trains but not as often as the 2 class Sulzer class47's named after the princes. The reign of the 47 is nearly over in the UK and the 67 is replacing many of the class 47 duties.

The class 66 is here to stay in the UK and at first they were greeted with distaste, not because they were GM more to the fact they didn't roar or clag (smoke) like a skip on fire. I have worked on the class 66's for quite a few years and I have to say they are easy to work on, and especially easy to put brake blocks in.

People slot loco's into their own pigeon holes. Drivers will like a loco for power, braking, ease of use. Fitters will like a loco if they can get to all parts easily and with least effort and enthusiast will like loco's for paint schemes, looks, power, smoke, noise etc. So basically we all have different reasons for liking particular locos and non of them can be for the wrong reasons.

The GM locos in the UK are being accepted by rail fans and they will become part of the history and people will miss them when their time comes. The UK rail fan tends to judge a loco by sound under load (thrash) or how much clag it makes (smoke). However a GM under load certainly has a throb to it. We do not have any GE loco's on the main line over here so cannot compare them here but they do (especially newer models) sound reminiscant of a UK class 47.

At the end of the day its each to his own and I must say I like both GE and GM loco's.

Cheers

Rory
[#oops][#offtopic]

[M636C]

Rory,

It's my topic and I don't think we're off topic just yet!

Here's an extract from the news item;

"An EMD Class 67 diesel has been painted in the official Royal Train color of Royal Claret, and named “The Queen's Messenger,” replacing two Class 47 locomotives, named “Prince William” and “Prince Henry.”"

Any idea which class 67 member has been named and dedicated to the Royal Train?

I just purchased the January issue of "Model Rail" which had an article on the class 66, and illustrated 66 952 (in Canada). I noted the larger roof duct for the radiator, and noticed that the engine room door now provided entry steps, and assumed that this was because walking through was no longer available. It was also indicated that the fuel tank was smaller, presumably to allow for a heavier radiator. (We like big radiators in Australia, because we really need them!) Strangely enough 66 952 appears to have one less pane in the side cab windows!

What do you call the emission standards in England? Is it also called "Tier II" there?

While Alstom presumably had some agreement with EMD to fit their equipment in the EWS and Israeli units, the bodyshell of the 67 is an Alstom design, available (and already built) with both French and British diesel engines as well as EMD.

I've heard from an EWS source that the D43 motors are a bit over worked in the 66. Do you find the same with Freightliner units?

Thanks for your contribution, it answered some questions I'd been meaning to ask!

Peter

[oubliette]

Hi Peter

67005 has been painted in Royal Plum and named Queen's Messenger. Alstom did indeed build the 67 but if you stepped on it you would say it is a GM or should I say EMD.

The D43TR traction motors have performed quite reliably over the years. I can only recall changing one traction motor. We've had to change a number of gear cases due to obstructions on the line etc but motors have been trouble free in the main.

As for the class 47's EWS have turned most of these off though many are OK to run.

The class 66's already have door on each side of the loco and these are to gain access to the large fuel and oil filters. The coolant tank is also behind these doors. The newer versions were to have extra doors with steps. It all seems to be up in the air at the moment.

I'd have to check the emission regulations for exact name. In the UK it was stated that all new loco's from now on had to be four stroke to cut down on emissions. GM have got round this by heavily modifying their loco and it has to be said the emissions eminating from them is a lot cleaner than current UK loco's though most of them in fairness are 30-40 years old.

Cheers

Rory

[M636C]

Rory,

I think a lot of people, not the least EMD, expected to need to use a four stroke engine, and hence they developed the 854 H and the larger 265H. But these didn't perform as well as expected, and the 710G3 proved to be more adapable. The larger radiator is required to control the temperature of combustion, through closer control of the intercooler temperature. However, this always assumes that the room to fit the radiator still exists in the locomotive! The problem with the 66 is just how tightly packed it already is! Even our Australian narrow gauge locomotives are larger than the 66, and being hood units (with a structural truss in the hood sides), provide better access to the equipment. The smallest of these aren't much bigger than a 66.

But the whole thing must be pretty tight if the fuel tank in the 66/9 has to be visibly reduced in size! EMD might have to change their export units to four stroke before the USA domestic units, or make the frame longer, to allow larger radiators while still allowing reasonable access.

I think Alstom have also offered locomotives with Alstom AC motors and electrical equipment but EMD engines, but they haven't had any takers. In the EWS case, they would have tried to keep as much common with the 66 as they could.

Peter

[oubliette]

Peter,

Having done some checking today it does seem the the new emissions clamp down is not as imminent as first thought. So much so that 9 new class 66's have been ordered and these will be with no modifications.

The 66/9 does indeed have a larger cooler group but access can be gained from one end of the locomotive to the other contrary to accounts. However it is more difficult as the radiator impinges into the corridor walkway of the 66. The head room is even more limited than before and drivers will complain about this. One of the 66's is in Freightliner colours and the other is still white.

So expect to see more 66's arriving in the UK quite shortly. On the subject of the 67, I think its 67006 is also to be named.

Cheers

Rory

[M636C]

Rory,

The development of the Emission controlled units at the same time as the SD70ACe makes sense, particularly when you realise that the JT42CWR is the only other current EMD product. There may be more serious emission requirements in parts of Europe. I think Norway has more serious restrictions on marine diesels, for example, and they have been and are good EMD customers.

The illustration of 66 952 shows it in Freightliner green. The radiators are slightly longer as well as deeper, but it is useful to have the additional access door to reduce the need to pass under the radiator, for maintainers as well as crew.

I would expect that the Royal Train would need to have a second locomotive available, and there should be more 67 class available with the reduction in Mail traffic.

Peter

[oubliette]

Hi Peter,

There is no doubt the EEC will impose an emissions figure at some time in the future but until then the 66's will keep arriving and I say keep 'em coming. I have seen the pictures of 66952 and also the white 66951.

I think EMD are very pro-active and so whatever the outcome these two loco's will be in traffic at some point, whether they are modified again is still to be seen.

As for as the side access doors are concerned the drivers will only use them if they really need to enter the inner sanctum of the loco. If they were changing ends, they will either still walk through internally or walk from one end to the other on the ground. Going into the side is not an option especially at high speed signals. With running lines being so close to each other in the uk many drivers will walk through a loco rather than at the side. The driver may have to get down eventually to ring the power box for the signal but does so at extreme caution due to trains passing at over 100mph. Signals sited like this have an "X" on them to warn of such hazards.

Had a close look at a 67 (011) this morning, the top half is very EMD whilst the bogies (trucks) are very much Alstom.


Cheers

Rory

[M636C]

Rory,

Clearances are better in Australia, and speeds are lower, and two groups of suburban electric driving trailer cars (one each in Melboune and Sydney) were modified or converted to trailers because they DIDN'T provide direct access to the track (leaving the driver to face disgrunted passengers on his way to the track phone!)

Hopefully, improvements to in-cab radios will eliminate the need for crewmen to descend to track level except in real emergencies.

But to return to topic a little, the style of body side ribbing on the 67 is quite different to that on the 66, and the 67 pattern is also a feature of recent SNCF electric locomotives built by Alstom, as well as the Israeli and other diesels.

Strangely, Australia is importing EMD locomotives for a mining railway. While we've always had local versions of these things, I had to track down builder's numbers for eight SD40-2s, former UP locomotives (replaced by SD70Ms) now working in Australia. I'm told maybe twelve more will come! The BHP Billiton line has a car dumper with limited clearances, and while SD40s will fit, locomotives with modern cabs won't! In fact, one of these units is a former SP SD40 dating to 1966! It is older than the line! Unfortunately, the line is on the diagonally opposite corner of Australia, more than a week's drive away, if you had time to drive!

Peter