66 type things
 

I am not into modern image, much less imported crap BUT I know a few folk here are! I saw a VERY shiney class 66 at Tonbridge Yard today, which using my ancient spotting skills not used since about 1984, was 66 471 (or maybe 374!), in a gawdy livery I don't recognise but it was veyr shiney and even had white rimmed buffers.

SO was it a new one fresh off the boat, or just some old tat slapped over with a broom and cheap paint??

;) :) :D

Just thought this maybe better in the deseasel and leccy bit if a MOD wants to move it...................

Hmmm, I just happen to have a copy of Rail in front of me, and according to their 66 feature, the highest 66/4 is 434 belonging to DRS, and the highest 66/3 is 305 belonging to Fastline.

Yep, that sounds like the GBRf, (they have some strange livery variations for their customers) since they're doing most of the work out Tonbridge yard nowadays. Was there any pink in the colour scheme ? It's a strange requirement of the First Group.

And let this be a lesson to you - next time take yer camera and binoculars !!! ;)

HTH,
Foggy

Your wish is my command ;)

I might tomorrow when I go back! I think the colour was essentially some green splashed with god-knows-what, but not pink. It could have been any combo of those numbers, so take yer pick!:p

Funny thing the Class 66, I keep missing them.

When I'm just walking up the steps of a station or just got onto a train or just put my camera away a 66 will pop up out of nowhere, it's happened to me about 6 times this month alone. = /

Either way they're not my cup of tea, I had a feeling they had a Canadian influence before I even knew it as fact based entirely on appearence, which is fine I suppose. I guess they're growing on me. I just perfer older stuff, British loco's, with proper British engineering and British pride and all that jazz, rather than a flat-pack Shed from Canada that arrives in a box covered in polystyrine.

I might pop down there tomorrow for a gawp myself, you've got me curious now.

I agree that they look bland and shedlike, but you can't knock their engineering. They p*** on the reliability of home built locos.

And the next generation of ugly but super efficient loco is already in the pipeline. Freightliner has placed an order for the 'Genesis' loco, which will be a hybrid - both diesel and electric, with dynamic braking. It's rumoured to have external walkways, a bit like a 58.

Then when they're in service perhaps people will look back and say, "I miss those old 66s, they looked alot better than this modern stuff." :)

Agreed, but if you ask me, you can have the most technically sound machine ever conceved, but if you've not put any passion and soul and character into that machine then there's no magic to me, it's just a machine.

I can't explain this, it's something that isn't tangible but it's there with some locos and it's not with others. I can't say it any more than that. I reckon the steam guys will sort of understand where I am coming from, and how the classic deisel generation is now ironically sharing some of those feelings? :D

I reckon every generation has difficulty letting their generation of loco go though, no doubt people growing up seeing the 66 around will no doubt find them to the best thing ever and whatever is coming next as you say to be the bland and boring thing.

but if you've not put any passion and soul and character into that machine then there's no magic to me, it's just a machine.

Yes it is just a machine, A machine that is there for one purpose and that is ti make money. the FOCs don't give a stuff about the character of a loco they care about the reliability cause a loco in the maint shed aint earning its keep.

Les

I fully understand what you're saying. I was being flippant about the 66s. They look like c**p, and they always will do. But as Les says, it's just there as part of a business - there's no profit in aesthetics.

I'll guess it was possibly 66574 - green implies Freightliner and it contains a 4 and 7. But more likely it was 66731 - it has white rimmed buffers (and the number contains a 1 and 7). I saw 66731 last week in west London so it's down south at the moment.

I just looked on your site and at the pics of the 66731 and perhaps that was it then, blue and pink not green! :o

To be fair I had a couple of seconds glimpse of it as my train went inot the station and I had just woken up from a nap, so not the best time to spot! The cleanliness and the white rimmed buffers where what caught my eye anyway.

Well, there is a shiny 66 type thing at Tonbridge so there!:p

It might sound daft, but with me it's the fact that the 66's are everywhere that gets on my nerves!

I liked the old regional variations...if it was a 52 then you were probably on the WR...if you saw a 55 then you were somewhere on the ECML. Now, you can go anywhere and you'll probably see a shed. You knew where you where with the old diesels...literally! :D

I know what you mean, but I quite like the opposite. You can now see almost any locomotive in any part of the country. Pick your favourite station, wait long enough, and eventually whatever you want to see will turn up!

I know of at least 2 people who have photographed every class 60 working on the Immingham - Scunthorpe iron ore trains, and I believe there is someone else who has photographed every Freightliner 66 and 90 from the same platform at Nuneaton. It means I don't have to travel all over the UK if I don't want to, looking for locos which I still need to see / photograph.

[QUOTE=Trev;17282]It might sound daft, but with me it's the fact that the 66's are everywhere that gets on my nerves!

The class 66 is everywhere and that is because when EWS biught their 250 brand new locos all the other companies waited a while to see how they fared in our climate of get it running and keep it running. Once the others saw how reliable the are they all jumped on the band wagon and ordered the unglamourous class 66 because the bloody thing does what it says on the box.

IT HAULS TRAINS and that is what it was developed to do and it does its job well.

From a drivers perspective thats what we want. A litle more comfort would be nice though, Oh to be able to have a coffee on the thing without it going all over the control pedestal.

Les

I have tried very hard to dismiss the 66's due to the volume and "standardness" of the design. However you see these machines lifting their trains and you can only feel awe at the power, and the reliability is excellent. One day we will be bemoaning the withdrawal of th 66's and cursing the sucsessor.

Lack of variation.
 

I have to agree with Trev - for me one of the best things about being interested in railways from an early age was the need to travel the country looking for those rare types that you never got on your home territory.Not only did you get to see rarely glimpsed motive power (and that was a real thrill in itself) you also got to find out a lot about this country of ours.Of course the world was a lot bigger in the early 60s than it is now - a trip to Scotland was a real adventure,by train or car.
It was a real treat to go hundreds of miles away and feel that you were in foreign lands - maybe that's difficult to understand today with mobile phones,motorways,laptops and all the paraphenalia of modern life - back then you were lucky to have a notebook and pen,let alone a camera or pair of binoculars.
Times change I guess,but I find it a shame that you can see a 158 in Penzance and a 158 in Inverness half a day later.

Well I looked again with open eyes this morning and it was 66731 in very clean condition sporting the sick-inducing livery as described. It was coupled to a similar loco behind in the same livery but I could not see the number and there was a green one too so I wasn't going mad!! All on 'shed' at Tonbridge for those that are interested.

Bear in mind though that it is impossible to see every class 66 in every part of the country. You aren't going to see the 66/3's outside of the north east coal flows - the 66/4's mainly ply the WCML and, as of very recently, the Tilbury - Daventry route too, but almost nowhere else. Freightliner's intermodal 66/5's, which accounts for a good 40-50 locos, cannot be seen at places like Barnetby, despite the amount of freight going through there. They tend to stick to the WCML, GE, and ECML, with a few flows elsewhere. The 66/6's conversely never get used on intermodals and generally stick to oil and coal traffic. You can go several days without seeing one of them at all at major junctions on all main lines. Even GBRf's 66/7's seem to be divided - as a rule of thumb (which I have only ever seen 2 exceptions to) the newest 66/7's (718 upwards) will almost always be used on the priority long distance container traffic, leaving the lowest numbered (701-717) to work gypsum trains, engineering & ballast trains, etc. At Hoo Junction, which I pass regularly, there is often a GBRf 66/7 from 701-717 lying around, but never one of the higher numbered ones, which I need to travel to Stratford or beyond to find. Not as simple as it first seems....:)

I take your point, and also that of Les, but at the end of the day, they are all Class 66's.

My love of railways is almost entirely an aesthetic one. I do realise that the railway is there to do a job, and I can appreciate that the 66 is a good piece of engineering...but speaking as an ex-trainspotter, I just find them so boring!

I suppose I'm now feeling like the older steam lads did in 1968. :(

Still feel that way Trev,
And we laughed about mobile chicken sheds a few weeks ago.
seems that 120 plus years later said chickens have come to roost on our rails.
John (G)

The 66s - Aesthetics vs. Reliability ?
 

As I understand it what we're discussing here is the look of the 66s,and not whether they are actually any good at the work they do,which doesn't seem to be in doubt.I agree that variations may be seen in different parts of the country and that you may have to actually make an effort to go see them if you wish,but,as has been pointed out,they are still class 66s.
I've made a comment on a photo in the gallery that the shape of the loco doesn't lend itself to long lens shots,the body seems too compressed ,but maybe that's me - has anyone else noticed this ? They look o.k. in scenic shots.
Myself,as far as looks go,I can take 'em or leave 'em,but I don't feel that they're in the same league as Deltics,Westerns,Warships,the 50s and quite a few others I could mention.
And those livery variations.......

I agree Dave. I will go even further and say that I think too much use is made of long lenses in railway photography nowadays. Most digital cameras are now supplied with zoom lenses and I get the feeling that many of today's photographers think it's a waste not to use them despite the distortion they cause. Apologies for going off topic.

I'm not sure that using zoom lenses creates significant distortion. Taking the 66's as a case in point, they have a fairly flat front profile anyway. Perhaps photographing something like an HST on high zoom would give it a more compressed and flattened appearance than otherwise but I honestly can't see it in many photos.

As for their popularity compared to 50's, deltics, etc. I am sure it is only a matter of time - perhaps 10 years, and more people will warm to them as the first few class members get withdrawn. Look at the popularity of the 60's nowadays. I remember everyone slating them and wishing all the 37's and 47's could remain in service a little longer. Less than 20 years in service and the 60's have a huge following now! How times change....

Hi Trev,
I am old enough to have had the heartache when steam went, then when the Deltics went, then the 40's and 45's, then my beloved 37's and 20's.
I am sure I will feel the same when the HST's go, if ever they do.
They call it progress dont they, though we all have our own opinions wether it is or not.
Paul.

Like everything it's all down to personal taste.
It's not so much the front end compression that bothers me but more the bodyside. Looking back through your photos and those of many others, it is the ones where the livery detail and numbers/letters can still be made out that appeal to me the most and invariably these are the ones taken on a lower telephoto setting.

OK, you're talking about bodyside compression. I can see where you're coming from there. However, my problem is that, generally whenever I take a photo on very low or no zoom at all, I find that the front of the train may be clearly visible, but the rear often seems to be so far away from the camera that it disappears basically to a point in the distance. The opposite distortion then becomes a problem. Nearby objects appear vastly larger than distant ones so photographing a train of any appreciable length is almost pointless.

This is obviously where we differ Darryl. To me having the rear of the train disappearing into the distance is not a problem but simply a fact of life. That is how it appears to the naked eye. To you it is a distortion that you choose to correct artificially. As I said it's all down to personal taste.