Talk:British Rail Class 67

There are frequent requests for this article to be re-named. Before making such a request, please read the past discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways. Biscuittin (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Nicknames
Re added Enthusiast nicknames - not quite sure why it was removed - any comments more than welcome though :) Muchclag 22:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Would add that it gains the name Skip from the shape - i.e. an upside down skip Worley-d 20:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, agreed, have added this. Muchclag 18:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction
In one place the main article says 67004 has cast iron brake blocks, in another it says 67007. Which is it?

Soarhead77 17:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Since I was actually in Fort William today and saw 67004 on the Caledonian Sleeper I know its that one!

Soarhead77 19:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Goodness. I didn't even know they had internet in Fort William yet!   —Sladen 06:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually 4 of the class have the cast iron brake blocks for West Highland duties —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.214.187 (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone know why they are numbered 67s?
According to the BR numbering page they should be in the 40-54 range due to being under 3000hp. Now I'm not sure if there any free numbers but I can't think of a 54 (53 was Falcon) I think the reason would be a useful addition to the page. Talltim (talk) 11:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The numbers go up I think - wouldnt create a new loco, and call it class 38, for example would you?!  ACBest Dog and Bone  14:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But yes you could and in fact just before privatisation there were plans for a class 38. The number ranges denote the power ratings. Talltim (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The numbering system is down to where there are gaps on TOPS - for example when the Class 66 appeared many people assumed that they would become 'Class 61' but there were, IIRC, DMU trailers in the 61XXX range so this couldn't happen as TOPS cannot have duplicated numbers. So as the Skips followed the Sheds, they became Class 67. Hope that helps! Zozzie 9t9 (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The number system for T.O.P.S also takes into account the power at rail force and class 67 have a high rating 1860kw compared with class 66 wich is 1850kw(2480 h.p.) wich gives them a high number on T.O.P.S.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liszka5044 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Power Output
Is the power output 2980 or 3200bhp? The two data panels contradict eachother... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.31.171 (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

However, the real confusion concerns the definition of loco power, the higher figure refers to the gross engine output. The engine has to provide power for any number of auxiliaries, such as cooling fans (48 hp each), water pumps, aux. gen. (18 kW), traction motor blowers, filter blowers, compressor, companion alternator, etc., etc. Subtract this lot, say 200 hp, from the gross figure and what's left is the amount available from the engine for traction. As this is the figure that matters for comparison purposes, traction hp is used as the standard AAR definition of loco power. More power is lost as it goes through the drivetrain, the engine drives the traction alternator whose 94% efficiency reduces our 3040 hp to 2858 hp, this is further reduced by the traction motor/gearing efficiency of, say 85%?, to 2429 hp (1812 kW) at the wheels. Suckindiesel (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hard to say if either figure is correct, as no EMD fact sheet quoted. The similarly engined & IE 201 Class articles quote 3,000 bhp (2240 kW) & 3,200 bhp gross / 2970 bhp traction respectively. The only available EMD fact sheet  is for the Class 66, it being the only one of the three in current production. This quotes 2420kW (3244 HP) engine & 2268 kW (3040 HP) traction. As you can see, this doesn't tally with the figure quoted in the Class 66 article.


 * Found and included a fact sheet from the manufacturers (see article) - 3200hp for the engine. No 'at rail' figure found as yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 22:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

removal
"The driving cabs of the Class 67 have a much more spacious cab than the Class 66 locomotives."

Possibly the cabs are more modern, don't think 'more spacious' is right in any sense.FengRail (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

fix article
Can anyone fix the missing dates and clarification requests in the article. Is there a source that can be used for the working information - www.class67.co.uk doesn't have it.87.102.67.84 (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Reference article
As per request - referenced article.

Some info was removed, some could be found. For the record this block of text may contain information that would be useful if it can be verified. (Please note some of it is already in the article)

By mid-2000, the class had replaced the Class 47s on most mail trains.

In mid-2003, EWS lost the mail contract. There was a gradual phasing out of mail trains, with TPO services ending on 9 January 2004, and normal mail services a few months later. Therefore, the Class 67s largely became redundant, despite being only five years old. They then replaced the Class 47s on GNER "Thunderbird" duties, and following the loss of passenger traffic the last were withdrawn in mid-2004. The Class 67s also started to see increased use on freight trains, often in pairs. They are often used on charter services. The winter months saw their use top-and-tailing rail treatment trains, removing leaves and ice from the tracks. During the summer of 2004, several were hired to Virgin Trains for weekend relief services between the North East and the South Coast.

From 28 April 2008 until 28 January 2011, the open-access passenger operator Wrexham & Shropshire ran trains hauled by Class 67 locomotives. Train services between Wrexham General and London Marylebone began on the 28 April 2008 using Mk3 coaching stock hired from rolling stock operator Cargo-D and using Class 67 locomotives operating top and tail pending delivery of Mark 3 Driving Van Trailers (DVTs) modified to work with the Class 67s. Delivery of three refurbished Mk3 DVTs allowed 100% push-pull train operation to commence in late October 2008 using the four dedicated WSMR locomotives, nos. 67012/13/14/15; as well as being painted in the silver livery these have had remote fire-fighting equipment fitted that can be operated from the DVT. When replaced by other members of the class, a driver has to ride in the locomotive when propelling in case of emergency.

First ScotRail have run one service per day at peak times on the Fife Circle Line with EWS Mk2 coaches hauled by a Class 67 (usually anything but those with Radio Electric Token equipment installed) since December 2008, this was increased to two in December 2009. The locomotive and coaching stock are based at EWS Millerhill depot throughout the day where they are cleaned and refuelled.

First Great Western made significant use of Class 67s and EWS-owned Mk2 coaches during 2007 and 2008. These were used on a Saturdays-only summer working from Bristol to Weymouth, additional services to Rugby during events in Cardiff, special trains from Paddington to the Cheltenham races and extra workings to Castle Cary for the Glastonbury festival.

On 15 December 2008, First Great Western introduced a Monday - Friday diagram employing two Class 67 locomotives operating in top and tail mode between Taunton and Cardiff. The routes operated for FGW are between Bristol, Taunton, Weston Super Mare and Cardiff. On 14 December 2009 First Great Western started a Monday - Friday diagram employing two Class 67 locomotives operating in top and tail mode between Paignton and Cardiff. In July 2010 FGW replaced their Class 57 loco hauled service with Class 67s, this was due to the lack of reliability of Class 57 had. As of Friday 12th November 2010 all FGW loco hauled diagrams finnished.

In 2009, for the autumn leaf fall season, DB Schenker Class 67 no. 67004 is being used on the Inverness railhead treatment circuit. In previous years this route was operated by DRS Class 66 locomotives.

Two locomotives, nos. 67005 and 67006 were repainted in the Royal Claret colour scheme for hauling the prestigious Royal Train, replacing the two previous Class 47 locomotives. In 2004, 67029 was repainted in "Executive Silver" livery for hauling the EWS Company Train. These locos are not exclusively dedicated to such duties; they are also seen on more routine freight duties.
 * Royal train

On 12 October 2007, 67029 was dedicated Royal Diamond at Rugeley Trent Valley for the diamond anniversary of the marriage of HM Queen Elizabeth II and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh. EWS Class 67 locomotives are used by First ScotRail to haul their Caledonian Sleeper services over non-electrified routes under contract; the "Highland Sleeper" services to and from Aberdeen, Inverness and, since June 2006, Fort William. They replaced haulage by Class 37 locomotives, although the latter were still occasionally used on the Fort William service until the end of 2006. Since the Class 67 has a higher axle loading than the Class 37, it is subject to speed restrictions on parts of this route and journey times have been slightly increased, despite a higher power/weight ratio.
 * Sleeper trains

When operations began on the West Highland line sleepers in 2006, Class 67s experienced severe brake problems, with replacements of the brake blocks needed at one point after virtually every trip. To remedy this, EWS nominated five locomotives - 67004/07/09/11/30 - as a dedicated pool to be used on the Fort William sleeper and fitted them with cast iron brake blocks. This has meant a restriction in top speed to 80 mi/h; this does not affect performance or timings on any part of the route between Edinburgh and Fort William. The five locomotives have also been fitted with the necessary RETB equipment to enable them to operate on the line.

In particular references for, and dates for the beginning and ending of major service patterns are what is needed most. Thanks.213.249.245.75 (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Disputed title
As per British Rail Class 66 - ie locomotives introduced after British Rail ceased to exist .. unlike British Rail Class 66 I can't think of an obvious common name to use - most places appear to use just "Class 67" which is too vague. Any ideas?Sf5xeplus (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How about Class 67 (British diesel locomotive) ? Biscuittin (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * UK RSL Class 67 seems concise and accurate, although I did vote for status quo when the wider debate took place. I doubt there's much support for moving away from the current convention until the UK railway operators adopt a new classification system. Which would need far to much co-operation than they can currently muster. (NB 67s are Spanish not British) Railwayfan2005 (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree on two counts. (1) it's Britain, not UK, because Northern Ireland has a separate railway system. (2) I don't know what RSL stands for - it isn't even clear that it's a railway locomotive. Biscuittin (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * When I said "British diesel locomotive" I meant that it works in Britain, not that it was built in Britain. We can hardly go for "Class 67 (Spanish diesel locomotive)" and "Class 66 (Canadian diesel locomotive)". Biscuittin (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I oppose any renaming away from the established naming convention for post-1948 locomotives per the recent lack of consensus to change the naming convention (and clear rejection of having no naming convention). Thryduulf (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To avoid duplication, I suggest we continue this discussion at Talk:British Rail Class 66. Biscuittin (talk) 07:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible change to the title of this article
This article is currently named in accordance the WikiProject UK Railways naming conventions for British rolling stock allocated a TOPS number. A proposal to change this convention and/or its scope is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways, where your comments would be welcome.
 * This debate was closed on 20 March 2011. Biscuittin (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But a separate debate about Class 66 and Class 67 is continuing. Biscuittin (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Intercity Express Programme
There is a discussion about possible use of Class 67s to haul IEP trains "beyond the wires" at Talk:Intercity_Express_Programme Biscuittin (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Article title
I see that British Rail Class 66, British Rail Class 67 and British Rail Class 70 (diesel) all have "disputed title" tags. This was discussed at length on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways and I thought we had a consensus to keep the existing titles. Why are the tags still in place? Biscuittin (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The conclusion for a new naming scheme was "no consensus " Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways (this?) and the naming issues with these still exist eg to quote from the class 70 discussion Article names should reflect usage in the real world. (text includes link to COMMONNAME) A convention which compels the creation of misleading new names which do not exist in reality (outside of wikipedia) is a silly convention. Wikipedia is an encyclopædia; it should, above all, be based on sources; that should apply to article names as well as to content
 * The first paragraph of Article titles states it ("it" being the problem with the name) too. If the title is disputed then it's sensible to leave the tag until fixed.Imgaril (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Most places just use "Class 67" eg Hornby, http://www.hornby.com/shop/locomotives/dcc-ready-locomotives/r2890-ews-managers-train-pack/ whatever Hornby does I do.Imgaril (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * But we can't do that because we'd need to disambiguate annoyingly. Easier to just retain a common system. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In this case we are ok: Class 67 (link) . Imgaril (talk) 07:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Class 67 is currently a redirect, and we have a hatnote on the article for the NSB Class 67, but it perhaps should be a DAB page to both articles, which is why just naming this Class 67 is problematical. Tim PF (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed the disputed title tag. Whilst there may have been no consensus at WikiProject UK Railways, there has been no active discussion for over 2 months. Tim PF (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Disputed title
The title fails WP:Verify and the guidelines at WP:Article titles. No reliable source uses the term "British Rail Class 66", and there are several alternatives. The tag Template:Disputed title has been on the page for some time since previous attempts to change the title were blocked by users at WikiProject UK Railways. If anyone can resolve this issue please do so. Imgaril (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's been discussed at the WikiProject and there was no consensus to change it, then the issue is resolved, unless you start a move request. Black Kite (t)   19:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There appears to be no consensus for the naming scheme either way at WikiProject railways and the correct thing to do was clearly still disputed when it was accepted that no consensus could be formed at that time - see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_20 Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_20 and- why not actually read the background before sticking your oar in?

Skips for hire - innacurate? (maybe?)
The article makes a number of claims
 * 67029 was fitted with TDM - also seems to say that the company train used TDM not AAR for push pull control. See also Talk:DB_Schenker_Company_Train - it seems this is wrong
 * Also claims that 67018 was painted CN red not DB Schenker Red quote "Contrary to some reports, this shade of red is not that of DB Schenker but rather that used by Canadian National "- this hasn't been verified either way

The writer seems to work for the railway - so it's not clear why the TDM info seems to be wrong - maybe there is more to it? I've moved the link for this article to external links.Mddkpp (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Company trains is not TDM fitted. The DVTs for WSMR had to be modified to allow them to work with AAR push pull control, the same way as the DVT for the company train was. To add more to that the coaches had to be modified to have 27 wire jumper cable for the AAR control. The DVTs do however maintain the ability to work with TDM fitted locomotives, this could be the cause of the confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.41.149 (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

List of liverys
removed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Rail_Class_67&diff=487859347&oldid=487858986

No reference wp:VERIFY, no dates, only covers current liveries WP:recentism. Contains unencyclopedic terms eg "EWS Thunderflash". Probably not maintainable. May be cruft. Oranjblud (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there a source for class 67 liveries that can be linked.?Oranjblud (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Operators and liveries and names
May be a good idea to merge these two sections, since there is beginning to be a lot of duplication between the two. Could call it "operational history" or similar? Oranjblud (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Arriva trains Wales
revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Rail_Class_67&diff=493881368&oldid=493868078

The issue here is that the reference give has two references to class 67's
 *  From December 2011, the Class 175 train will be replaced by a Class 67 locomotive with carriages similar to those used on Y Gerallt Gymro,
 *  There will be a new contract for the Class 67 locomotives from mid-December.

Neither of which confirm anything in the article.Oranjblud (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

W&SR livery dates
It has been pointed out that the information I added was wrong about the W&SR locomotives being operated in EWS livery - the source http://www.icrs.org.uk/Site/Features/wrexham_shropshire.htm is not 100% clear on when the loco's were repainted, this needs a better source.

Information about 67010 is also missing.Oranjblud (talk) 13:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

List
The list is unsourced. But the main problem is that a list of numbers' liveries and names isn't that encyclopedic - especially if it:
 * Only lists the current state.
 * Doesn't give previous liveries/ names
 * Gives no additional content.

There are online sources of this sort of thing that are well maintained. My opinion is that an encyclopedia is not about a list of names and numbers from a undated point int time.Oranjblud (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Are a number of on-line lists but not right up to date:


 * http://www.scot-rail.co.uk/page/Class+67


 * http://www.railwayscene.co.uk/rsdblist.php


 * http://www.wnxx.com/fleetstatus/index.htm


 * various discussion groups, mainly member only, the validity of which can be questionable


 * Most accurate source is TOPS database which is covered by copyright


 * Main body does state all were delivered in EWS livery and then lists those repainted.


 * I would have thought a list, albeit perhaps slightly out of date, was more informative than no list at all.D47817 (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

wnxx
The wnxx sourced info needs better references - the site is not accessible, and it's reliability is unclear, also the same for a link to a facebook page..

If someone can read the info maybe they can sort it out and find something better?Prof.Haddock (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on British Rail Class 67. 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/20110830184251/http://the67depot.webs.com/technical.html to http://the67depot.webs.com/technical.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ews-railway.co.uk/cmsystem/news_article.asp?guid=%7B33366DAD-CBE8-46E4-B35B-70AD3634A62A%7D
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ews-railway.co.uk/cmsystem/news_article.asp?guid=%7BD5D0BADF-5617-4ACB-9379-5B94D81E7E5C%7D

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) 04:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)