Talk:British Rail Class 67

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Trains Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance within the Trains WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Railways.
High Importance: High within UK Railways WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport in Scotland.
Mid Importance: Mid within Transport in Scotland WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of the Locomotives task force.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?! ACBestDog 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)

[edit] 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)

  • Hard to say if either figure is correct, as no EMD fact sheet quoted. The similarly engined Class 66 & IE 201 Class articles quote 3,000 bhp (2240 kW) & 3,200 bhp gross / 2970 bhp traction respectively. The only available EMD fact sheet [1] 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.
    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)