British Rail Class 60 Locomotives E-Book

Edward Gleed

• Herausgeber: Crowood
• Kategorie: Lebensstil
• Sprache: Englisch

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2016

Beschreibung

During the mid-1980s, in a drive for greater efficiency, British Rail required another heavy freight locomotive, some of the earlier Type 5 freight locomotives being outdated and no longer regarded as suitable for heavy freight duties. The new Class 60 locomotive was to be constructed using lessons learned from the Classes 56 and 58. Six organisations were invited to tender but only three did so. The contract was awarded to Brush Electrical Machines (today, Brush Traction, part of the Wabtec Rail Group) for a powerful 60mph Type 5 Co-Co design, which resulted in an order being placed for one hundred Class 60 diesel-electric locomotives. Using original research from the National Archives, British Rail Class 60 Locomotives is a high illustrated guide that explores the commissioning of the Class 60s and their construction, testing and running. It undertakes an in-depth technical appraisal of the class and details names, liveries, modifications and preservation and includes the 'Super 60' refurbishment programme and acquisition of ten Class 60s for Colas Rail UK, bringing the timeline to the present day. Of interest to all diesel loco enthusiasts and railway modellers, thie book is lavishly illustrated with 280 colour and black & white photographs, many previously unpublished.

Leseprobe

As part of the 125th anniversary celebrations held on 3 August 2014, 60001Steadfast(originally namedStedfast) stands at its ‘birthplace’ at Brush Traction. A splendid 10¼in-gauge working model of 60001 stands alongside.EDWARD GLEED

First published in 2016 by The Crowood Press Ltd Ramsbury, Marlborough Wiltshire SN8 2HR

www.crowood.com

© Edward Gleed 2016

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

ISBN 978 1 78500 150 5

CONTENTS

DEDICATION

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

PREFACE

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1 TENDERING AND CONTRACT

CHAPTER 2 CONSTRUCTION AND DELIVERY

CHAPTER 3 TECHNICAL DETAIL

CHAPTER 4 AREAS OF OPERATION OF THE CLASS 60

CHAPTER 5 LIVERIES, NUMBERS AND NAMES

CHAPTER 6 THE CLASS 60 REFURBISHMENT PROGRAMME

CHAPTER 7 THE COLAS CLASS 60s

APPENDIX: COMPONENTS, EQUIPMENT AND TOPS SCHEDULES

REFERENCES

FURTHER READING

ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS – TENDERING AND CONTRACT

INDEX

DEDICATION

For my Dad.

The peace and tranquillity of the countryside is momentarily shattered as DBS Class 60 No. 60092 thunders through Wollaston atop 6B13 Robeston–Westerleigh on a very hot 5 July 2013.EDWARD GLEED

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Over the years the Class 60s have been much maligned, perhaps due to erroneous or misinterpreted information, and I hope this book will redress the balance. The rail industry now has a class of locomotives that is more than fit for purpose, and to quote a phrase from one of the British Rail Class 60 publicity videos, ‘The power to move mountains’ is certainly one that has resonance.

British Rail Class 60 Locomotives has taken a number of years to complete. It has been a very fulfilling project, but it would not have been possible without the valuable assistance of many individuals, family members, friends and organizations, to all of whom I owe a huge debt of gratitude. I would like to commence by thanking most sincerely all those who have contributed to this book in any way, either by their own personal stories and recollections of the Class 60, or through their provision of photographic material. The main contributors are listed below; I apologize for those I have left out, but it would be impossible to name every individual. These include the following:

Richard Tuplin, editor at the Railway Herald for disseminating my initial request for photographic images, for his advice, and for proofreading various chapters.

John Stretton, for his advice and for sharing his vast collection of Class 60 photographs, especially during the construction of the Class 60; also for enabling me to contact individuals retired from Brush Traction, and individuals working in various train operating companies.

Former employees of Brush Traction (a part of the Wabtec Rail Group) for their valuable assistance regarding the construction, manufacturing process and history of the Class 60.

Paul Johnson at the National Archive at Kew for granting permission to reproduce historical information surrounding the Class 60s.

I would also like to extend my sincere gratitude to the many individuals within the following companies:

DB Schenker Rail UK for supplying photographic material.

Colas Rail UK for supplying details of the ‘Super 60’ refurbishment programme, and for photographic material for use in this book.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd, for granting permission to reproduce TOPS material in this book.

Special thanks are also due to the signalling staff at Bristol Area Signalling Centre, for their endless assistance in indicating the whereabouts of the Class 60 fleet.

Leighton Prado for his dedication in offering advice for this book.

Last, but most importantly, I owe a huge debt of gratitude to my family, especially to my wife Sharon and my children Charlotte and Lauren, for their endless support, patience and understanding, and for maintaining family life at home when I was away obtaining material for this book, as well as countless hours of proofreading.

PREFACE

My interest in railways started from a very young age. I was born in Shropshire in the market town of Ludlow, which lies 28 miles (45km) south of Shrewsbury and 24 miles (38km) north of the city of Hereford, both of which are quite important railway centres. Ludlow is situated approximately midway along the Cardiff–Crewe main line, which today is very busy with both passenger services and a myriad of freight workings; these on occasions are served by Class 60s, notably 6M76 Margam–Dee Marsh and return working 6V75 Dee Marsh–Margam. This particular diagram conveys steel products.

It was most fortunate that my parents purchased a bungalow with a beautiful garden, behind which the Cardiff–Crewe main line runs, affording an almost ‘grandstand’ view of the railway. However, my sister and I were strictly forbidden to go over the boundary fence, or to cross the railway near our home using what is still known today as the ‘49 Steps Crossing’, steeply graded steps leading up from the road on to the foot crossing. At the top of the steps it is virtually impossible to see trains coming up from Hereford, and users of the crossing have very little warning at all of any oncoming trains: when drivers sound their warning horn at the pre-set distance, the train is at the crossing within a matter of seconds. Trains coming from the Shrewsbury direction are not a great deal easier to see, either.

DB Schenker Rail UK’s 60100 passing through the station of my birthplace of Ludlow whilst working 6V75, 09:30 Dee Marsh–Margam steel on 29 September 2014.EDWARD GLEED

At the age of six I had my first electric train set, given to me by my parents as a Christmas present. I still own that beloved GWR ‘Pannier’ tank locomotive with two Great Western Mk1 chocolate and cream coaches, although alas the oval track has long gone; but this gift represented a pivotal moment in my interest in model railways. Then at the age of nine, I started what many schoolboys did at that time – trainspotting! There was much to see in those days on that line; the Class 33s were drafted in to replace the ailing Class 25s on the Cardiff–Crewe passenger services, as the 25s were not powerful enough to make up lost time in the event of delay. Class 37s, 40s, 45s and 47s reigned supreme on freight services, and these services were quite frequent; indeed in the summer months I would peer out of my bedroom window at bedtime to see the northbound Severn Tunnel Junction–Mossend (Glasgow) Freightliner service pass by. This train was usually headed by a Class 47, and on one occasion I remember No. 47 484 Isambard Kingdom Brunel hauling this working. Ironically this name would also be affixed to No. 60 081, described in Chapter 5. Single Class 117 postal DMUs could be seen in the early morning, and even the occasional Class 31 could put in an appearance.

My father was born in Bristol, and following his retirement, we returned there in the summer of 1983 when my interest in railways intensified. My secondary school was ideally situated to sustain my interest in railways, as it was in viewing distance of the main line from Bristol Temple Meads to Exeter. I was always interested in seeing which locomotive was hauling the lunchtime departure to Manchester Piccadilly, and more often than not it was a Class 50. I would also go on cycle rides with my friends to Winterbourne, Coalpit Heath, Bristol Parkway, and on occasions Bristol Temple Meads, which enabled me to see Classes 50 and 56, locomotives I had only seen in my railway books and magazines when I was living in Ludlow. HSTs (High Speed Trains) were never seen in the Ludlow area, though they continue to depart from Bristol St Philips Marsh HST depot and run empty stock to Hereford to form one of the Hereford–Paddington services. My first sighting of a HST was at Bristol Temple Meads, which was a truly momentous occasion.

My father, to whom I owe a huge debt of gratitude, wanted me to consider a career in the electronics industry, in which he had been involved for many years. However, my interest in electronics related solely to my model railway, and I decided to follow a career in the railway industry, something which suited me perfectly, having had a passion for trains from such a young age – and to this day I have never looked back.

My interest in trains not only encompasses my working career, it is also a major component of my hobbies. I have spent forty years honing my skills, creating my own railway layouts and also contributing to the creation of several layouts for a model railway club, which I regularly attend. All of these in some way replicate the first model railway I saw when I was just five years of age, albeit with the advantages of modern technology in the form of ‘Digital Command Control’, or DCC.

Alongside my railway modelling I have a strong interest in railway photography, taking every possible opportunity to photograph workings in various destinations around the United Kingdom. Some of my photographic work has been published in the acclaimed Railway Herald online magazine and other railway publications.

It has given me great pleasure to have been given the opportunity to write this book, and I hope that readers will enjoy reading it as much as I have enjoyed writing it.

A Note on the Images

A brief note should be made regarding the photographic images used in this book, which are based on my personal beliefs and not necessarily on those of others. Selecting the photographic material for this book has given me enormous pleasure, but although I have attempted to include as many locations as I can where the Class 60s have operated in the UK, it is impossible to include their every location and working.

Personally I am not a devotee of ‘photographic manipulation’. Under certain circumstances I will enhance a particular shot to balance the lighting in relation to what the eye naturally sees. In particular this is more apparent where there are deep shadows, or in extreme cases where the shot is rare or never to be repeated and will be recording the event for posterity or historical value. I also firmly believe that one can only work with the moment that has been captured by the camera at any particular point in time; after all, photography is all about painting with light, and what is deemed right for one person is not necessarily right for another. Photography is very personal, and to some, manipulation under the right circumstances can be very creative and artistic.

Every effort has been made to credit the images used in this book to the copyright holder. Photographic images taken by myself will have been credited as ‘Edward Gleed’.

In order to give a detailed and accurate account of the Class 60, much of the information has been sourced from the National Archives at Kew in West London. Certain parts of this book, notably Chapter 1, have utilized information that has hitherto not been made available for public viewing. Certain documents have been granted scrutiny under the ‘Freedom of Information’ request, although some information that might have been included in this book remains closed for access.

It should be understood that in places relating to current maintenance and overhaul work, especially regarding the ‘Super 60’ programme, it has not been possible to provide a detailed account of all the work being undertaken, as the majority of this information is deemed to be commercially sensitive and the companies involved have therefore declined to release some details of the project.

Edward Gleed Bristol, July 2015

INTRODUCTION

The era of steam locomotives on Britain’s main-line network spanned more than 120 years. During the 1950s, when the focus of attention was concentrated on how spiralling costs could be arrested, the railway network was made more cost effective, heralding the end of steam traction. The railways were a labour-intensive organization: the rising wages bill and the increasing cost of coal, in addition to the running costs and the amount of time it took to prepare, service, dispose of and maintain steam locomotives, resulted in major change within the railway industry. Steam traction was systematically reduced on the main lines across Britain during the 1960s, with the final workings coming to an end in the North West in August 1968 – although a number of steam locomotives continued to operate within industrial sites such as collieries well into the 1970s.

Before the general demise, British Railways commissioned locomotive manufacturers to produce a small number of diesel locomotives for evaluation, which would be suitable for handling main-line traffic. The first of these to appear under the British Railways modernization plan of 1955 was the English Electric Type 1 design in 1957, the pioneer being numbered D8000. It was the intention that these pilotscheme locomotives would be fully assessed before any full-scale contracts were placed. However, some production orders were placed for locomotives that were deemed most suitable for the intended traffic flows, and in a number of cases, contracts were signed before a number of teething troubles had been discovered. Furthermore, second-generation locomotives appeared from 1962 onwards, resulting in a vast array of traction available to the railway industry by the end of steam traction.

With the exception of shunting locomotives, the traction was, and still is, ranked in ‘Type’ order ranging from one to five. The most powerful locomotives are ranked as Type 5, which today covers Classes 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 66, 67, 68 and 70. Type 1s were the least powerful, being allocated to Classes 14, 15, 16, 17 and 20.

The Class 47s

Until the late 1970s, the ubiquitous Brush-designed Type 4 Class 47 diesel electric locomotive was employed on many of the long-distance passenger and freight trains across the country, earning itself the title ‘jack of all trades, master of none’ by many enthusiasts. In their defence, however, these locomotives were hugely versatile machines, which were, in many cases, rostered to work the heaviest of freight trains during the 1970s and 1980s. Being mixed-traffic locomotives they could never be expected to fulfil all demands at the extreme ends of the spectrum. From their earliest days of operation, they were most suited to operate lengthy Freightliner services on flows such as Thamesport (London)–Ditton (Liverpool) and Severn Tunnel Junction–Mossend (Glasgow), as well as many others. This was due to the fact that container trains, now familiarly known as intermodal services, could be timed to operate at 75mph (120km/h), and considering that the Class 47s could attain a top speed of 95mph (153km/h) this was well within their capabilities.

The Class 47s were constructed in significant numbers, with a total of 512 examples being built. In addition to containerized traffic, they could also be seen hauling the heavy oil trains such as those between Stanlow, near Ellesmere Port, and Jarrow in the North East. Indeed, this particular diagram was so heavy that pairs of 47s were used. However, operating the class in pairs was problematic to British Rail as they were not equipped for multiple working, which required both 47s to be manned and was therefore a costly exercise.

However, during the mid-1980s, many of these locomotives were often relegated to more mundane duties such as engineering trains and trip workings, where short freight moves between marshalling yards involved depositing wagons en route. Their role as passenger locomotives on principal routes to and from the capital was reduced as a result of the introduction of the HSTs, which assumed express passenger duties, specifically on the East Coast and Great Western main lines, as well as some cross-country routes. As the HSTs were gradually introduced to high-speed diagrams, Classes 45, 46 and 50 were relegated to freight and engineering duties, or displaced to other routes.

The 47s were employed on MGR (‘merry-go-round’) trains utilizing the 32-tonne, HAA hopper wagons during their early years, with the introduction of a method of working that revolutionized the way coal trains were being operated. Loading characteristically took place from large overhead bunkers, with the train moving slowly beneath them. When the coal was being unloaded at the power station, the train was hauled at a slow and steady speed, normally around 3mph (5km/h), through the unloading hopper whilst the wagons were discharged. The entire operation was totally automated through the use of line-side apparatus known as ‘daleks’. A number of 47s assigned to these diagrams were equipped with SSF (‘sensor speed-fitted’) equipment, which enabled the driver to control the movement at a precise speed. This operation instantly speeded up services, made more efficient use of both locomotives and wagons and substantially reduced operating costs.

Throughout this post-steam period, British Railways – and later the rebranded British Rail (BR) – had moved the concept of wagonload traffic away from the local station pick-up freight to one that concentrated more on the needs of industry. Marketed as ‘Speedlink’, the idea allowed businesses and industry to send products from their own premises or regional freight centres. Despite this, lower road-haulage costs led to an almost continual decline in wagonload traffic that would continue towards the end of the twentieth century, and result in its total cessation.

The Class 56s

During the 1980s, BR began to form itself into business units, or sectors, with each having charge of, among other things, locomotives, depots and staff. The underlying pressure for sectorization was political, applied by the government to encourage a more modern business-like approach to operating BR. During the early 1980s, BR felt there was a requirement for a more powerful freight locomotive. Authorization was given by the government to commence the tendering process for the construction of a more powerful Type 5 locomotive: this was to become known as the Class 56. Owing to time constraints, the end result was that this new design had a similar body shape to the Class 47, both having a monocoque construction. However, other associated equipment, such as the engine and generator, was very different.

A ‘classic’ view of Bristol Temple Meads is obtained as Colas Class 56, No. 56302, works 6V54 Chirk–Teigngrace timber on a beautiful 10 September 2014.EDWARD GLEED

The Class 56s were designed by Brush, and the first thirty machines were constructed by Electroputere of Craiova in Romania; construction of the remainder was divided between Crewe and Doncaster Works. However, once the locomotives built in Romania had arrived on UK shores, it was clear that all was not well with the quality of their construction. Issues surrounding wiring and incorrectly machined axles were soon brought to BR’s attention, and the financial expense of rectifying the defects would almost certainly have been a costly process.

The Class 58s

To cope with further demand from the coal industry, BR sought approval for another further improved Type 5 freight locomotive. This new locomotive, to be known as the Class 58, was a very different machine from what had been operated by BR before. Efficiency was one of the key requirements, and furthermore, the Class 58 looked very different.

A fine study of Seco Rail-liveried 58009 is seen at Toton Depot. Note the design of the bogie, which is similar to that in use on the Class 60.JOHN STRETTON

Following on from most of the older BR machines – with the exception of shunting locomotives and Type 1 locomotives, including the Class 20s – two cabs were provided. The main difference was the body shape, which was much narrower, thereby allowing maintenance staff to access parts of the engine via the solebar created by the narrow body. This in turn allowed a more efficient maintenance regime. Gone was the monocoque body, replaced by a return to bedplate construction. A new style of bogie with separately exited traction motors (‘Sepex’) was employed: it had been trialled on a member of the Class 56 fleet, 56042, with a positive response. The Class 58s were given the nickname ‘Bones’ by some rail enthusiasts due to their overall shape as viewed from above, this consisting of a full-width cab on each end of a narrow body.

With vast tonnages of aggregate being processed at the Mendip quarries, the customer required BR to run longer trains. Trains conveying aggregate could gross 4,000 tonnes, which was well beyond the limits of the 47s, although Class 56s would have no doubt been suitable; but ‘pairs’ of locomotives would have been needed, which would have been very costly – not due to manning levels, as the 56s were TDM fitted, but because of the cost of fuel and additional maintenance.

The Class 59s

By the mid-1980s, Foster Yeoman had become very discontented with the repeated poor performance of the Type 5 locomotives that BR had supplied to work the heavy aggregate trains from the Somerset quarries of Whatley and Merehead. However, they were impressed with the American shunting locomotives operating at their Merehead quarry, so they turned to the USA to provide main-line freight locomotives for their privately owned trains. In 1986, the first of what was to be known as the Class 59 touched down on UK shores.

The first Class 59, No. 59001Yeoman Endeavour, passes Fairwood Junction atop one of the many stone trains that emanate from the Whatley and Merehead quarries on the 4 August 2011.EDWARD GLEED

The Class 59s were built by General Motors’ Electro-Motive Division in the USA, and were based on the company’s popular SD40-2 design, used extensively by US railroads – but here was yet another locomotive that was significantly different from other types of main-line traction in Britain. Although BR did not own the Class 59s, the locomotives were driven by BR drivers, and their use on the Mendip stone traffic was a huge success. Indeed one of them holds the European haulage record for a single locomotive, successfully moving a 5,415ft (1,650m) long train conveying 11,982 tonnes of aggregate in May 1991. In daily service the trains, which employed Foster Yeoman’s own wagon fleet, were shorter and lighter, but regularly grossed 4,700 tonnes. The 59s were very successful, and their haulage capacity was far superior to that of the 56s and 58s.

It is worth noting that the success of the Class 59s was a factor in the development of the Class 66 fleet of locomotives. By the mid-1990s, the three privatized Trainload Freight companies – Loadhaul, Mainline Freight and Transrail Freight (which had been purchased by Wisconsin Central Transportation System) – had been merged and rebranded as English, Welsh and Scottish Railway (EW&S). With a fleet of ageing and uneconomic locomotives, the American company turned to GM for an updated Class 59, using a similar bodyshell and its JT42CWR engine. The outcome was an order from EW&S for 250 Class 66s Type 5 heavy-freight locomotives, and their design has subsequently become the mainstay of heavy freight motive power in the UK, with examples having been purchased by Direct Rail Services, Freightliner (for both its Heavy Haul and Intermodal divisions) and GB Railfreight. Subsequent changes in leasing have also resulted in the type now being used by Colas Rail.

The 59s were equipped with a two-stroke diesel engine, which has proved to be highly reliable in operation. The number of Class 59s in traffic totalled fifteen, with Foster Yeoman expanding its fleet to five, aggregate company ARC purchasing four and power generator National Power creating a fleet of six. The latter subsequently became part of EWS, and all now predominantly operate in the Westbury and West London areas on Mendip aggregate traffic. A downturn in the aggregate industry resulted in No. 59003 Yeoman Highlander being sold to Heavy Haul Power International and exported to Germany in the late 1990s. Recent negotiations have resulted in the locomotive returning to the UK in November 2014, and following extensive overhaul and modifications it entered revenue-earning traffic with GB Railfreight in mid-2015.

The Class 60s

During the mid-1980s, BR required another heavy freight locomotive, and having gained authorization from the Government, invited companies to tender. This locomotive would be constructed using lessons learned from the Classes 56 and 58. While six organizations were invited to tender, only three did so, the winner being Brush Electric Machines (today, Brush Traction and part of the Wabtec Group) with a powerful 60mph (96km/h) Type 5 Co-Co design; this resulted in an order being placed for 100 locomotives.

EWS-liveried Class 66/0, No. 66055, rumbles through Bristol Temple Meads on a short engineers’ working on 12 May 2012.EDWARD GLEED

The iron ore tippler house at Llanwern is the location for Corus-liveried 60006Scunthorpe Ironmaster, at the helm of one of the many Port Talbot–Llanwern steel trains. December 2001.LEIGHTON PRADO

With the technological advances that were available in the rail industry, the locomotives, designated Class 60, were a far more advanced product than the earlier Type 5 designs built by BR. Here was a locomotive that, at the planning stages, would afford superior haulage capacity and excellent fuel economy. The aim was to bring the new fleet more in line with the haulage capacity of the Foster Yeoman 59s than the BR-designed 56s and 58s. However, modern technology can also bring disadvantages, and the Class 60s experienced a multitude of technological problems, some of which related to cylinder-head blows and issues with the Deuta Health monitoring equipment, which constantly monitored the current state of the engine.

But with the technical problems sorted out, the Class 60s are widely regarded by drivers as the preferred choice to this day. These locomotives can develop phenomenal amounts of power, and in terms of capability for a single unit regarding performance and haulage ability, the Class 60s can afford superior traction with their ‘creep control’. Despite all of this, however, the type are still second to the GM-built Class 59 in terms of horsepower. The latter-built Class 66 could not match the top-end performance or the creep control of the Class 60, which has a definite ‘edge’ over the Class 66 and almost certainly prevented the demise of the Class 60.

As will be described in Chapter 4, the Class 60s have been utilized on freight services across the UK, in many cases being reserved for the heaviest freight traffic where a single locomotive is required. Certain workings for the class, such as engineers’ trains, require two locomotives, one at each end of the train, although this is more related to operating convenience than required tractive effort.

The first member of the Class 60 fleet passing through Barnetby atop 6T23 Immingham–Santon amidst a fine array of semaphore signals on 16 June 2014.EDWARD GLEED

Over the years, the Class 60s have unfortunately been the subject of incorrect press reports. It was most unfortunate that from their earliest stages of construction, problem after problem arose. This culminated with BR almost cancelling the order from Brush Traction, a situation discussed in Chapter 2. Construction of the Class 60 commenced during 1989, but it was not until 1993 that all 100 members of the class had been accepted into traffic.

In the period that this book has been in preparation, DB Schenker Rail UK (the latest owner of what was English, Welsh & Scottish Railway) reduced the original 100-strong Class down to just a handful in service, although happily this situation has now improved, with over a quarter of the fleet currently in active service. In addition, twenty stored members of the DB Schenker Rail UK (DBS) fleet have been sold to Colas Rail Freight, several of which have now progressed through the workshops at Toton for overhaul and have returned to traffic in the bright yellow and orange colour scheme of the latter company. DBS is also in the process of undertaking a ‘life extension’ programme on up to thirty-one members of the fleet, a move that is likely to support a further fifteen years’ service for those members of the class. The project, which is labelled as the ‘Super 60’ programme, requires extensive work to all parts of the locomotive.

With a projected lifespan of forty years’ service from new, and less than half the class currently in traffic, it seems a terrible waste of a fantastic piece of machinery that is fit for purpose in every respect. Thankfully, those selected for refurbishment should have a long future in supporting the rail freight industry, and enthusiasts will be able to enjoy them for years to come.

CHAPTER ONE

TENDERING AND CONTRACT

Why were the Class 60s required? During the 1980s, BR was faced with a major problem due to an upsurge in freight demand and heavier trainloads demanded by the customer. At that time the traction that BR could offer to haul the heavier demand was suffering from rising maintenance costs, and many locomotives had accrued twenty-five years of, in some cases, punishing service. The fact that many of the classes are still seen performing frontline operations on the main line today – notably Classes 20, 31, 37 and 47 (albeit in vastly reduced numbers from the original build) – is a credit to their designers and manufacturers.

But in the 1980s, BR could not meet the needs of the customer in terms of traction power. The oil crisis of the early 1970s caused BR to issue an urgent requirement for an ‘intermediate freight locomotive’ to be rated at 3,500hp for hauling coal traffic. During 1975 Brush had designed the Class 56, which was based on the Class 47 body; however, the Class 56 had a 3,500hp engine, which had been installed along with different bogies. The construction of the first thirty Class 56s had been undertaken by Electroputere in Craiova, Romania; these were considered to be a high power ‘stop-gap’ locomotive, though they suffered from quality problems, thought to include electrical wiring issues and poorly machined axles. The remaining 105 Class 56s were constructed by BREL (British Rail Engineering Limited) and were deemed to be of much better build quality, though by this time the engines had been de-rated to 3,250hp in order to afford greater reliability. Over the years, the Class 56’s reliability improved to an adequate level and was considered by many to be a good second choice to the later Class 60; however, the tremendous tractive effort and hill start/all-weather performance capability of the Class 60 was (and still is) far superior to that of the Class 56.

In 1983 BR designed the radical-looking Class 58; it was constructed by BREL and was intended to be a general freight locomotive. However, in reality the Class 58s were used on heavy coal trains to which they were not best suited due to the mediocre wheelslip performance of their BR-designed bogies. Unfortunately the Class 58s were deemed to be as troublesome as the Class 56s, although during their careers the 58s settled down and, like the 56s, gave adequate performance – though not as good as even the 56s while hauling heavier freight.

In order for BR to satisfy their customers’ requirements, a decision needed to be reached quickly, and so BR undertook a rigorous tendering process for a new Type 5 heavy freight locomotive. This would be a massive investment for BR, and so they required a contract that was not only robust, but one that could deliver the best value for money, even if it meant exploring the possibility of purchasing overseas. BR’s preferred option would be to support British industry, but only if they could match or better the offer by overseas manufacturers. In the early 1980s, BR published their intent to purchase up to 200 new freight locomotives to replace the Class 37s, amongst others, which were to be nominally rated at 2,000hp. The freight locomotives were to utilize the Co-Co wheel arrangement, and to be uncomplicated in design in order to aid ease of maintenance and ensure high reliability. Low life-cycle expenditure was seen to be at least as important as the initial outlay.

An alternative solution would have been to carry out major overhauls of, and/or possibly to re-engine certain classes of locomotive to meet those requirements. This had been partially the case in the past, although not in any huge numbers. During the mid-1980s, six members of the Class 37 fleet (numbered 37901–37906 respectively) underwent extensive modification and alterations, and re-classification to 37/9. This involved the installation of new engines and other associated equipment, four of which were supplied by Mirrlees and two by Ruston. Following the installation of the engines in the Class 37/9s, BR then had to evaluate which of the two companies’ engines would be the most cost effective, and best suited to hauling heavy loads up stiff gradients.

Was the Class 60 Needed?

The Railfreight sector of BR needed to be certain that the Class 60 was actually needed. Were there any advantages in ordering a less powerful locomotive such as a Class 38, for example, which could be used on certain traffic, or indeed in carrying out life extensions to other classes of locomotive? It was noted that certain classes, notably Class 33s and Class 47s, were deemed unsuitable for life extensions, citing the fact that such an extension would be prohibitively expensive. However, this theory relating to Class 47s was disproved during the late 1990s, as Brush Traction converted thirtythree Class 47s and rebuilt them as Class 57s. Interestingly, the Freightliner Class 57s (and 12-645-F3 at 2,750bhp for the ETS locomotives for Virgin Trains and First Great Western Class 57s) were equipped with a General Motors 12-645-E3 engine developing 2,500hp. As will be described later in this chapter, a General Motors engine was offered to BR to power the Class 60.

An appraisal was carried out in 1986 for a standard fleet replacement, to be known as the Class 38. However, in a memorandum to the Investment Committee for the Class 60 diesel electric locomotives, is was felt that the difference in cost between the Class 38 and Class 60 specification was not great, and it was preferred to invest in a fleet of locomotives that could haul heavier trains in the future should the need arise. Within the Investment Committee’s memorandum, they had been asked to request authority for the issue of invitations to tender for 100 Class 60 diesel electric locomotives for the core trainload freight business.4

British Rail had gained experience from the private operator Foster Yeoman, who owned and operated an American ‘Switcher’ (shunting locomotive) – the General Motors EMD SW1001 No. 44 Western Yeoman, constructed in the USA, and which was put into use at their company quarry at Merehead in Somerset. Foster Yeoman, who had been impressed by this Switcher unit, went on to source the highly successful Class 59 diesel electric locomotives. This took place in 1985, and it was a significant event when the new Class 59 EMD locomotives arrived at Foster Yeoman.

The first batch of Class 59s was constructed between 1985 and 1989 by General Motors, Electro Motive Division, in La Grange, Chicago, USA. The Class 59’s performance changed the thinking at BR, and the specification for the new freight locomotives was changed to 100 units at 3,100hp with adhesion enhancement: this would become the Class 60. The Class 59s had clearly shown that they were able to haul some of BR’s heaviest trains, aided by technological advances in wheelslip control, known as ‘Super Series’ control. Moreover the Class 59’s low running costs and high availability were sure to be in favour with BR.

In summary, BR laid down tough criteria: the new Type 5 locomotives had to be the most cost effective to build, test and commission. Furthermore, the locomotives had to have high availability coupled with low running costs; this would allow heavier trains to be hauled, negating the need for double heading. Although the GM Class 59 credentials certainly looked most favourable, the UK government was very keen to support British industry, which at that time was going through very difficult times. A substantial order such as the Class 60 would certainly go some way to alleviate the situation, and no doubt the government would have leant heavily on BR to select the British option. However, BR were keen to select a manufacturer that could supply the Class 60s within a short timeframe, and would also give the best value for money. The 100 Class 60 locomotives would allow 240 existing ageing locomotives to be withdrawn, in some cases en masse.4

DBS 59202 powers one of the many aggregate workings that operate between the Somerset quarries and the south-east. This isCroftonon the Berks & Hants line on 14 August 2013.EDWARD GLEED

Required Specifications for the Class 60

A business and operating specification for the Class 60 had been drawn up, which required following; a key selection of the operating specifications is described below.

Scope of the project:

The locomotive was required to haul specific heavy trains on a variety of routes throughout the country.

The fleet of 100 Class 60s were to be delivered within financial years ranging between 1989 and 1992.

The life expectancy was to be forty years, with half-life rebuilding.

Cost targets:

Maintenance costs: £45,000 per annum.

Fuel consumption: 400,000ltr (88,000gal) for an annual 96,000km (59,654 miles).

Performance:

Haulage capability: The locomotive had to be able to start a train of mixed stock 2,800 tonnes trailing load, and continuously haul a mixed train of 2,250 tonnes, both on a 1 in 100 rising gradient on relatively straight track. In addition, slow speed control was required at 0.8, 1.6 and 4.32km/h (0.5, 1.0 and 2.68mph).

General requirements:

Two driving cabs were to be provided, one at each end, and to be full width.

Ambient temperatures: –30o +40o.

The locomotive had to be able to negotiate snow left after the passage of snow ploughs, and to travel through wind-borne snow. Miniature snow-plough brackets were required.

The locomotive had to be able to negotiate 150mm (6in) floodwater above rail level.

Compatibility:

Track-circuit operation was to comply with signalling principles, No. 36.

AWS and Vigilance devices were to be fitted, together with NRN radio equipment.

The locomotive had to be able to work with all air-braked freight rolling stock, and be able to work in multiple with another Class 60 locomotive.

The 7 May 1988 proved to be an important day for the Class 60s. Having sought government approval for 100 Class 60 diesel electric locomotives, a letter was signed and sent from Paul Channon (Department of Transport) to Sir Robert Reid (British Railways Board), giving formal approval to the proposal for the purchase of 100 Class 60 diesel electric locomotives, at an estimated cost of £121.5m.4

The Tendering Process

On 23 July 1987, a memorandum to the British Railways Board Investment Committee was produced for the invitation to tender for the Class 60. The purpose of the memorandum was to seek authority to invite tenders for the Class 60 locomotives.The memorandum outlined the fact that the present fleet of diesel locomotives was in excess of twenty-five years’ service, coupled with rising maintenance costs. It further mentioned that a proposal to acquire a quantity of Class 60 locomotives was being evaluated against a base case for the retention of a number of classes, namely Classes 20, 31 and 47.4

Hitherto, no life extension programme had been undertaken on these locomotives. Certain members of the Class 37 diesel electric locomotive fleet underwent extensive refurbishment, which commenced in the early 1980s. A realistic timetable had been written detailing the fastest possible timings between the authority to tender and the actual placement of the order, which was from 3 August 1987 to the end of March 1988. A number of key issues were highlighted in this memorandum, one of them being the timescale, which was thought to be extremely tight. This timetable mentioned the fact that in order to obtain the fastest delivery schedule for the locomotives, an order should be placed with General Motors for further Class 59s. If this were to be the case, then BR would expect delivery of an initial batch of twenty locomotives by early 1989. (At this juncture, it is worth noting that US firms were used to building locomotives continuously, whereas in the UK construction was sporadic.)

However, if BR placed an order with a UK-based company, it was felt that the timetable would need to be extended due to start-up times, with locomotives entering service during mid-1989. It was noted by BR that if the locomotives were sourced in the UK, the maximum feasible delivery would be approximately two years. In summarizing the realistic timetable, BR concluded that in order for new locomotives to be entering service during 1989, construction would have to be undertaken in the USA.4

The Tenderers

The British Railways Board (BRB) identified its various requirements and evaluation criteria. Having liaised with consultants Merz & McLellan, the BRB sent out letters inviting companies to tender for the Class 60 project. The companies who were invited to tender were: Brush Electrical Machines Traction Division (with parent company, Hawker Siddeley); GEC-Transportation Projects Limited; Metro Cammell Limited; General Electric; General Motors, Electro-Motive Division; and NEI Peebles Limited.4

A close-up photograph of the manufacturer’s plate affixed to 60003. 11 December 1989.JOHN STRETTON

The tenderers who responded to the BRB were Metro Cammell Limited, GEC Transportation Projects Limited, General Motors USA and Brush Electrical Machines.

METRO CAMMELL LIMITED

Similar to the likes of Brush and GEC, Metro Cammell were long established in rolling stock construction. They supplied rolling stock to many parts of the world, including the Jamaican Railway Corporation, Peru and Hong Kong Mass Transit Railway Corporation. In the UK they were responsible for the construction of the highly acclaimed Class 101 Diesel Multiple Unit of 1956 and the plush Blue Pullman of 1962, and also the Class 156 ‘Sprinter’ and certain rolling stock for the London Underground.4

On 6 November 1987, Mr B. S. Bonan (Managing Director of Metro Cammell Limited) formally submitted a booklet in support of their Class 60 tender to Mr J. K. Welsby of the BRB for their perusal. In the covering letter, Mr B. S. Bonan stated that he declined to send the booklet to the chairman Sir Robert Reid, as they thought it was up to Mr Welsby’s discretion as to whether it would be of interest to him.4

Having given due consideration to the BRB’s requirements, Metro Cammell felt that they could not meet the delivery start-up of a trial batch of twenty locomotives as the timescale was extremely tight. Metro Cammell requested that the BRB give consideration that a first batch five locomotives be supplied, and further asked for the last five since they could be supplied in a competitive timescale. Metro Cammell hoped that the opportunity to purchase the very best mix of locomotive technology would be of sufficient interest for the BRB to consider the offer. The booklet provided by Metro Cammell was most detailed, and they were keen to exhibit their credentials, some of which are detailed below.4

First, Metro Cammell had entered into an exclusive agreement with Brown Boveri (ASEA Brown Boveri Group) from 1 January 1988 to collaborate on the Class 60 project, and had also been in the international main contracting business for over 140 years. The company were also able to offer the BRB for the Class 60 absolute freedom of choice of technology, sub-system equipment and choices of supply, though Metro Cammell would retain total control and full responsibility for the performance of the locomotive. The BRB were also given the choice to select on the following:

■ An alternative engine to Mirrlees

■ An alternative bogie to Brush

■ A UK source of supply for the BBC three-phase equipment (BBC: Brown, Boveri & Cie. AG, Baden Switzerland (1891–1987))

■ A preferred UK source of supply for the locomotive body

It was further stipulated by Metro Cammell that any of the combinations should be under the main contractorship, responsibility and control of the company. Further to the aforementioned, Metro Cammell set out what they would deliver:

■ Proven BBC GTO (gate turn-off thyrystor) based three-phase technology

■ Flexibility and choice of key locomotive sub-components

■ Guarantees of performance of the locomotive of BR’s choice

■ A main British contractor

■ An established and proven project management organization

■ An established and proven quality management organization

■ Substantial experience in international main contracting

■ An established and proven contracting and supplier management organization

■ The largest engineering and management base in the UK train industry, in addition to the combined resources of the ABB Group

Metro Cammell’s selling points were a track record and consistency in the following:

■ Service

■ Quality

■ Sound engineering

■ Delivery

■ Performance

However, it is understood that Metro Cammell had not built a locomotive in twenty years, and their bid was discounted by BR who deemed it was not a viable proposition.4

GEC TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS LIMITED

Similar to the other contenders, GEC had a very long association with the railway industry, both in the UK and abroad. For the UK market, GEC were the driving force behind the Class 91 project for the East Coast Main Line. Other locomotives that GEC had designed were locomotives for the African Class 9E Series 1.

A letter from GEC to Mr Blake (Chief Mechanical and Electrical Engineer to the BRB) indicated that their figures showed high availability and reliability with the Class 59 locomotives. Having been invited to tender for the Class 60 project, GEC were keen to emphasize that ‘they would play a dominant role in assuring that our proposed Class 60 locomotive would be manufactured to the same standard as the British Railways would anticipate with locomotives wholly built by General Motors’. On 16 December 1987, a letter from Robert Hughes (House of Commons, London) to the chairman of the BRB Sir Robert Reid, stated that GEC might use the Class 59 engine made by General Motors of the USA, and wished to enquire what specification of engine was given to the Class 60.4

GENERAL MOTORS USA

General Motors have supplied locomotives on a global basis for many years, including to the UK.This has been in the form of the Class 59 locomotives, as has been mentioned earlier in this chapter, and continue to do so to the present day in the similar form of the Class 66 diesel electric locomotive.

Having been invited by the BRB to tender for the Class 60 locomotives, a letter dated 13 May 1988 from Mr C. J. Vaughan (Vice President of General Motors Corporation) had been sent to the BRB chairman indicating that they had been working with GEC to ensure that their locomotive ‘would have a high degree of manufactured content’. The letter further explained that they had been working as a sub-contractor to GEC, and that such a move was not usual for them. Mr C. J. Vaughan also outlined that General Motors might have misunderstood the significance of the bid submission, and since then had undertaken significant improvements on their offer, in particular to comply with the requirements under the reliability section of the tender.4

BRUSH ELECTRICAL MACHINES

At the time of the tendering process for the Class 60,‘Brush’ was actually known as ‘Brush Electrical Machines Traction Division’. The BR tendering process had encouraged a dual source of engine, therefore the Brush bid included a Ruston 8-cylinder in-line engine – though this could only develop up to 2,800hp as opposed to the chosen Mirrlees Blackstone 8MB275RT engine that could develop up to 3,100hp. Brush Traction were also aware that the Class 59s that were already in service were proving their worth, and their company, Electro-Motive Division, could supply a Class 59 within the timeframe. In order for Brush to remain competitive, they had to commit to their submitted tender to the BRB. However, in hindsight it is further understood that a minimum of thirty months would have been realistic.

The main selling points for Brush were as follows:4

■ They were a UK-based industry supplier and manufacturer with many years of experience in the railway industry

■ They could meet the timeframe and technical compliance specification as requested by BR

The Appointment of Engineering Consultants

The British Railways Board sent out invitations to tender for the Class 60 project, and the government was keen for an outside view on the viability of each tender. Therefore the services of engineering consultants were sourced in order for an impartial assessment to be made in terms of the evaluation process. In a correspondence from Mr P. S. Higham (Director of Supply of the British Railways Board), letters were sent out to four consulting engineering companies, dated 16 November 1987. They were: Merz & McLellan (Consulting Engineers); Kennedy Henderson Limited (Consulting Engineers and Economists); Rendel, Palmer & Tritton (Consulting and Design Engineers); and Bechtel Limited.4 (For contact details, see page 190.)

The letter advised that the British Railways Board had decided to employ the services of consultants to obtain an impartial assessment of the objectivity and competence of tender appraisal. The companies were formally asked if they wished to be considered for the consulting assignment, and stated that their response was required quickly. In a letter dated 10 November 1987, Mr Colin Driver (Director of Railfreight) wrote to Mr J. K. Welsby (Managing Director Procurement and Specialist Projects) indicating his support of the idea to use an independent adviser regarding the responses to the Class 60 tender. In the opinion of Mr M. V. Casey (Director of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering), Merz & McLellan, Rendel, Palmer and Tritton, and Kennedy Henderson should receive consideration on the grounds that these three companies had undertaken similar work with suitably trained staff. Mr M. V. Casey further added that the first two companies had capabilities in the type of evaluation that BR were seeking.4

In a letter dated 16 November 1988 from Mr Higham (Director of Supply of the BRB) to Rendel, Palmer & Tritton, the company were formally invited to indicate whether they wished to be considered to the assignment of an impartial assessment of the objectivity and competence of the process of tender appraisal of the construction of the Class 60s. The letter also indicated that bids had been received by three firms. The letter set out the requirements of the process in advising the BRB on what information was needed in order to advise the Board of the credentials of the aforementioned tenders. In order for the consultants to reach a recommendation, a scoring method had been employed. The scoring method, derived from the tender evaluation, had to be undertaken by specialist engineers of the DM&EE (Director of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering) staff at the Railway Technical Centre based in Derby. The method of evaluation was spilt into three headings: operating/technical, safety and health legislation. Each category was most specific, calling for items ranging from locomotive performance to locomotive fire protection to be scrutinized.4

Hawker Siddeley Engine Trials

In order to ensure a prime position when bidding commenced for the Class 60s, Hawker Siddeley decided to trial their highly fuel-efficient MB275 engine in a locomotive. The Class 37 fleet was undergoing a ‘heavy general repair’ at Crewe at the time, where Brush alternators were replacing the DC generators; therefore it was a prime opportunity to install the MB275 in a locomotive similar to the planned new units. In the event, four Class 37s were repowered with 6-cylinder MB275 engines rated at 1,800hp at 1,000rpm: these were 37901, 37902, 37903 and 37904, while GEC repowered two Class 37s with their RK270 engine: 37905 and 37906.

Work commenced in 1984 with Brush designing the new engine installation, Mirrlees building the engines, and Crewe undertaking the assembly and static testing. Hawker Siddeley decided that the MB275 engine would continue to be offered for the Class 60, but in 8-cylinder form. The new rating would be 3,100hp at 1,000rpm. For the Class 37 installation, the engine was producing 300hp per cylinder; for the Class 60 it would have to be nearly 400hp per cylinder, a very significant uprate. The uprate drove some fundamental changes, a notable one being a change to the cylinder-head construction. The Class 37 engine utilized the proven three-deck cylinder heads, but the flame face was not strong enough to resist the higher firing pressures of the increased rating, and a change was made to bore-cooled heads.5 In the interests of simplification, the cooling system was changed from the twin-circuit system used on the Class 37 (separate jacket water and charge air cooling) to a singlecircuit system. The combination of the power per cylinder uprate and the changes to the engine design meant that the reliability and durability demonstrated on the Class 37 repower project was of limited value. It is worth noting that although these modified units were intended to run for only a couple of years to gain experience on the engine, they ran until withdrawal in the late 1990s.5

The conversions were also undertaken for possible use in a new class of locomotive, the Class 38, which never materialized. Certainly, hitherto, the vast majority of locomotives from the 1955 British Transport Commission Modernization plan* had in many cases given sterling performance, notably Classes 20, 31, 37 and 47, all of which are still in use today, though since railway privatization under different ownership. In some cases, major rebuilds or modifications have been carried out to bring them up to today’s required standard.

In similarity with Brush, Mirrlees Blackstone at Stockport has had a long association with the railway industry over the years – though it has to be said there were issues concerning the K. Major engines that were fitted to the Class 31 diesel electric locomotive. In the end, BR removed the Mirrlees engines and re-engined the entire fleet with English Electric engines.

Evaluation of the Tenders

A meeting was held in Euston House to discuss the latest position of bids for the Class 60s. In the meeting Mr J. K. Welsby stated that its purpose was to establish the current position regarding the evaluation of tenders for the Class 60 diesel electric locomotive, which had been invited from Brush, GEC and Metro Cammell. The evaluation of the tenders looked at the strengths and weaknesses of each tender, which fell into four categories: locomotive equipment, locomotive performance, track forces/noise levels and contract performance. The strengths and weaknesses were measured on a scale ranging from zero to ten, where a figure of ten would indicate that total compliance was achieved, while a score of zero in any area would indicate non-compliance and render disqualification of that tender. In the event of any uncertainties with the evaluations, the tenderer would be called in for the Board to seek clarification.

Of the companies that tendered, under the following criteria it was found that in the technical assessment in terms of quality assurance GEC was found to be superior, but in all other areas Brush was superior. When comparing Metro Cammell with GEC it was found that technically, Metro Cammell was superior, though the consultants’ views were ‘that Metro Cammell’s response was unacceptable because the basis of the tender was not clear and they had not met the delivery times’. Further to this, the consultants were of the opinion that Brush had produced a better offer than GEC, though Dr Hore of Merz & McLellan consultants was concerned that the assessment had looked at the detail rather than the whole, and wished to undertake some further evaluation of the locomotives as an entity and report back. It was agreed by all present that this should happen.4

On the commercial side, a financial assessment found that the bids had produced the following ranking: 1: Brush, 2: GEC, 3: Metro Cammell, though Metro Cammell had been ruled out on financial grounds. It was then stated that both Brush and GEC met the delivery terms, although Brush was found to be marginally better in that area. However, it was decided that further evaluation of unit prices was required. From the above, the next requirement was to put together a draft contract document including both technical and commercial terms and conditions. It was planned to discuss the aforementioned at a meeting on Thursday 31 March 1988. A further requirement was to send draft contracts to Brush and GEC seeking the best and final offers for award of the contract, and for such a contract to be placed by the end of March. Mr J. K. Welsby was most explicit, instructing that it was strictly forbidden for anyone to engage in further discussions with the bidders other than through Director of Supply.4

Following the meeting, the timetable set out below was compiled:4

9 March: Letters and draft contracts issued

25 March: Replies to be received by 12 noon

31 March: Technical evaluation to be completed

7 April: Papers to supply committee issued

14 April: Supply committee

25 April: Placement of contract

The Involvement of the National Union of Railwaymen (NUR)

As with any item of rolling stock that was presented to BR Operations, the trade union needed to be consulted on matters of safety and operational use. In addition, the unions were keen to support their workforce on matters concerning job security. To support this matter, Mr J. Knapp (General Secretary of the National Union of Railwaymen) wrote a letter to Mr T. Toolan (Managing Director, Personnel of the British Railways Board) on 20 August 1987 airing his concerns, having learned from the Press that BR had decided to invite both General Motors and GEC to bid for an order to supply 100 Class 60 diesel electric locomotives.

Mr J. Knapp also mentioned in his letter that the decision was fundamental to the future of BRB’s subsidiary BREL (British Rail Engineering Limited), and that as a matter of courtesy, the trade union could have been informed in advance of the press. Mr J. Knapp was further concerned that BR was contemplating purchasing equipment from abroad that could jeopardize the future of railway manufacturing in the UK. According to Mr J. Knapp, Press reports had suggested that BREL had hoped to participate in the tendering process as sub-contractors. Mr J. Knapp also asked BR to confirm whether BREL would not be prevented from becoming subcontractors.

It is clear in a letter dated 19 September 1987 from Mr Eastham MP of the House of Commons, that although at that time the USA had produced locomotives with an excellent track record, the Class 60 project was seen as a major opportunity for UK manufacturers. BR was keen to give assurance that they would try to support the UK engineering industry and manufacturing.4

The Relative Performance of GEC and Brush Tenders

Dr Hore had compiled an overview on behalf of Merz & McLellan of the relative performance of tenders of both GEC and Brush. In Dr Hore’s report, it mentioned that the Brush tender was ‘one of the most comprehensive’4 that the BRB had received since the introduction of competitive tendering, and further demonstrated a very high degree of compliance. Brush had produced a technical design for BR that was almost entirely specification compliant. Electro-Motive Division (EMD) offered a version of the Class 59 and were not particularly interested in undertaking many modifications in order to be more compliant for such a small order to them. Their bid had raised roughly 600 questions, as it was deemed to be largely non-spec compliant, as opposed to the Brush tender, which acquired far fewer questions, this being due to the fact that its specification was deemed to be highly compliant. In addition, EMD’s Crewe-built locomotive would have required an imperial to metric conversion process, and this was a concern with regard to quality. Even the 74-volt (rather than the BR 110-volt) equipment meant that the spares would be ‘unique’, which caused great concern to BR.

From a commercial point of view, EMD’s Crewe-built locomotive was more expensive by £100,000 per locomotive due to BREL’s levy. It is interesting to note that the EMD at no time supplied a four-year warranty, which is what BR required. One thing that is certain is that BR would not consider a deal without a warranty.11 However, in the case of GEC, Dr Hore was of the opinion that the process with GEC was ‘long and tortuous’,4 and further thought that their tender responses were ‘patchy’.