Talk:British Rail Class 60

message: Hi, if anyone knows how to get two pictures in the same box, please let me know, apologies to the author of the last picture (60's at Peak forest) i didn't realise it would do that - Llamafish 19:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't! Its a standard format infobox, and this one (like most) only allows one photo. I revamped the article, and moved your photo to a place which better illustartes the words within the article. Rgds, --Trident13 19:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you can. Just use the break command . Mjroots (talk) 10:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  previous class 60 photo 

message: Hi, Not sure that the above phrase is particularly clear, in that I have no idea what the author is getting at. Also, it's hardly very suitable for an encyclopaedia, is it?
Anybody?
rgds Cheekyal 14:51, 7 Aug 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unprecedented Frothing By Paint Neds" 

message: Article is a bit personal - "frugal fuel consumption"??? A bit of distance from the subject would help - if anyone want's to sort out this articles minor problems.
If nothing happens I suppose I will have to repair what I can, and tag the dubious statements with the relevent tags.
also "Speculation has it that EWS are going to invest heavily on the fleet in the next few years, although they are redoubtably investigating Freightliner's new Class 68 fleet due to enter service in 2009, as well as other products from Europe"
"Although even the oldest members of the Class 60 fleet are just about to hit the 20 year mark, their prospects have not looked as favourable as they might have in recent times"
Does anyone see what I mean? potentially unreliable statements, and and vagueries.
Also Tractive_effort has different tractive effort figures. 
Also (from Continuous_tractive_effort) 336kN @ 17.4mph appears to equal 2700kW of power (at rail) which is 400kW more than the output of the engine!!! Does anyone have reliable figures for this loco? (I noticed a trend on this page and elsewher to make claims about the power of these locos - despite having a no more powerful engine (on paper) than 56,66,58s ?) For some reason this article seems to regard class 58s as being substantially less powerful. Possibly a bit of favouritism has crept in?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 00:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The artcle does seem to contradict itself. It goes from saying they are unreliable to saying they are extremely reliable. 86.141.114.73 (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have a go at making it better in the next few weeks if no-one else does first.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 13:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: References?

message: As outlined with the problems above - I've rewritten this article a bit.
There is still a problem with the continuous tractive effort (318kN @ 28km/h) which still exceeds the max engine power, (let alone the power at rail).
As such I've marked the figure as dubious in the info box - If anyone can sort this out please do.FengRail (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quite right - the quoted figure is impossible. I will give the figures so they can be checked (I used imperial units because I found it easier): 17.4 mph x 1.467 = 25.5 ft/sec. 25.5 x 71,570 lbf = 1,825,035 ft lb/sec. Divide by 550 = 3318 hp, i.e. more than the 3100 hp engine rating. It would be interesting to check the figures for some other locos and see whether such anomalies are common. Biscuittin (talk) 09:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've checked quite a few (UK and european) and all I've found have tractive effort power matching (or a few percent less) than the rated power.87.102.67.84 (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: The latest news is that "In 2009, DB Schenker have only go 13 of the 100 strong fleet in service."
However another(?) person says that:
"In 2008, EWS was acquired by Deutsche Bahn and incorporated into its DB Schenker group.A full change of identity came on 1 January 2009 with EWS being renamed 'DB Schenker Rail (UK) Ltd' DB Schenker have stated that in the economic down-turn (2008 onwards : see Global financial crisis of 2008–2009 for details) the Class 60s will all be stored."
The two don't quite match: are all stored? or has the situation improved? Given the unreferenced nature of the facts, and the vague contradiction I have removed both for now, until clarification..FengRail (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds as though the Class 60s are on the way out. Are there any plans to preserve one? Biscuittin (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've added a section. Biscuittin (talk) 09:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: DB Schenker

message: Does anyone know the date they commenced testing as the article states: "The first locomotive was delivered in June 1986 and sent to Derby for testing".
however in a earlier paragraph: "On 10 August 1987, the British Rail Board issued a competitive tender for response by 7 November, for a fleet of 100 locomotives."
As it is impossible to test a loco before building it, some revised dates are needed here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Memo232 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: someone fixed it - it was 89, not 86 - typo.87.102.67.84 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 02:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: According to the Tugtracker reference there are two starter motors. I thought starting was by compressed air. Does anyone have more information? Biscuittin (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Biscuittin (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engine starting 

message: Most of the article is sourced to a variety of apparently self-published websites.  These do not seem to meet the criteria for reliable sources.
There are at least two factual errors in the article.  I've not corrected them as I don't have sources.  However:
1. "The class 60s primarily worked on aggregate (specifically stone) traffic..."  The class were originally allocated to oil, coal, steel and aggregate traffic.  As I recall, the class was split approximately equally between these sectors.
2. "The whole class of one hundred locomotives was based at Toton TMD..."  Certainly not initially.  To my recollection, locomotives were allocated to Toton, Immingham, Thornaby, Cardiff Canton and London Stewarts Lane.
Dricherby (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there's a general lack of info on workings as far as I can tell, with currently self published sources being the only source, and all the attendent problems that brings. I've removed some of the unreferenced stuff - including things that have their accuracy questioned, or stuff that seems partially opinion. Still needs work. Does a good book on the class exist yet? Sf5xeplus (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly agree with Dricherby re point 2 - a glance through Platform 5 Locomotives & Coaching Stock, 1990-94 editions (ie the delivery period), shows that early allocations included TO (Toton), TE (Thornaby), IM (Immingham), CF (Cardiff Canton), SL (Stewarts Lane). Subsequent editions until that of 1997 show a similar scatter (although I didn't notice any depots other than those five, there may have been others involved); but in the 1998 edition, all are shown at Toton. I've not analysed the sector allocations. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy and sources 

message: Hello. I've reference the disposal of 20 class 60s from http://www.rail.dbschenker.co.uk/disposals/disposals.html.
However this link will almost certainly go dead (the closing date is 27th sept..) can someone else add a permantent reference, eg reliable news source etc. thanks.Sf5xeplus (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Class 60 disposals sept 2010

message: Some class 60s are being offered for sale by Romic-Ace, a company based in Singapore. Does anybody have further information? Biscuittin (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class 60 disposals April 2013 

message: The metric/imperial conversions for engine bore and stroke in Modern Locomotives Illustrated, issue 206, April-May 2014, page 16, ISSN 1756-8188 are inaccurate. I have corrected them, based on the metric figures. The metric figures give the correct cubic capacity: 13.75 x 13.75 x 30.5 x 3.142 x 8 / 1,000 = 144.9 litres. Biscuittin (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors in engine dimensions 

message: The Class 60 Preservation Group  seems to be defunct. Biscuittin (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to have been revived. Biscuittin (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I consider their work sabotage.. Still need these engines to bring stone from Skitpon to Hull. Do not want them preserved onto some 4 mile stretch of bullhead rail in a national park somewhere..Prof.Haddock (talk) 22:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preservation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on British Rail Class 60. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20160205061045/http://www.c60pg.co.uk/ to http://www.c60pg.co.uk
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on British Rail Class 60. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205215324/http://www.thejunction.org.uk/cl60.html to http://www.thejunction.org.uk/cl60.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160205061045/http://www.c60pg.co.uk/ to http://www.c60pg.co.uk/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on British Rail Class 60. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141214032421/http://www.traintesting.com/Class_60.htm to http://www.traintesting.com/Class_60.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified