Class 68 Progress, what's the latest?

[Rhydgaled]

What do you classify an entirely electrified route as then ?

No company has enough spare capacity to park up locos right left and centre at the interfaces of electrified and non electrified lines.

I believe the original proposal here relates to freight services which run entriely under the wires, from end-to-end, not lines that are entirely electrified.

So, a freight service from Carlisle to Ely (using both electrified and non-electrified routes) could use diesel traction throughout without being subject to the proposed tax. Only if you have a freight service on a route such as Hitchin to Edinburgh, running on electrified lines all the way, would the operator be fined for using a diesel locomotive.

Note that my knowlege of freight flows and terminals is very limited, so I just picked on some stations that illustrate the difference.

It's a shame that you don't answer even the basics of any question you are asked, which lines do you consider to be electrified and that diesels should not work on ?

As I said above, I don't think it is a question of which lines but rather one of which freight services. A freight service which solely uses electrified lines (and could therefore be worked using an electric locomotive) should ideally be worked by an electric locomotive. However, I don't think anybody here has seriously suggested a FOC should be penalised if they use diesel traction on electrified routes if the freight service being worked by diesel traction uses sections of non-electrified track.

 

[fowler9]

I can't think of many freight flows myself that don't involve the top loading of hoppers or shipping containers being lowered on to flat bed wagons. How would this work with the FOC's? Would they just have to start buying diesel shunting locos for every distribution point?

 

[Loki]

I can't think of many freight flows myself that don't involve the top loading of hoppers or shipping containers being lowered on to flat bed wagons. How would this work with the FOC's? Would they just have to start buying diesel shunting locos for every distribution point?

Typically you either drag a shunter with the train or use last mile electrics. In some places the shuters might actually stay on site and are property of the goods distributor. This is a fairly common practice as well if the site is busy enough. Of course DRS seems to believe electro-diesels are the best solution and I agree here.

 

[fowler9]

Typically you either drag a shunter with the train or use last mile electrics. In some places the shuters might actually stay on site and are property of the goods distributor. This is a fairly common practice as well if the site is busy enough. Of course DRS seems to believe electro-diesels are the best solution and I agree here.

Well its an interesting point. I'm not sure a shunter will be stabled at Garston or Seaforth any time soon or that the trains that use these terminals will start dragging a shunter around with them. That said I saw an 08 being delivered to Allerton TMD the other day, anyone know what that was about?

 

[Sunbird24]

I suspect the DRS order for class 88s is intended for use mainly on runs such as Daventry-Mossend and similar where there is a short section to the end-customer premises where there is no electrification and the 900HP engine is sufficient for that use. For longer journeys on diesel power the version with the 2400 or 2800HP engine would have been better, though the 68 body might have to be lengthened for that. The South Africans have ordered the larger version for their Cape gauge system!

 

[HSTEd]

Actually, if you're going to borrow ideas from US practice, out of a small terminal they'd probably just propel the train out onto the mainline (with the conductor standing on the ground by the mainline switch), hand throw the switch back to the normal position, padlock it, and radio the dispatcher to confirm the switch position before proceeding down the mainline - job done . (interlocking - what's that?)

Well these days they appear to have gone for interlocks in the form of what appears to amount to super-RETB? (Positive train control and all that).

Using Locotrol (radio control of rear or mid-train 'helper' locomotives) is mostly a mainline thing 'out west' to avoid the need for manned helpers (banking engines) over long distances in the mountains, and to improve train handling for very long, heavy trains.

Indeed, but the American scenario is rather coloured by the fact that a train can run thousands of miles without having to reverse at any time as it is on a standard line hall operation for days with multiple crew changes.
Such routes are rather unlikely in the UK due to the far shorter distances.

Meanwhile remote control equipment like locotrol offers major advantages in terms of reversibility of operations and essentially converting fixed workings (which are almost all workings) into push pull operations.

On the other hand, using US style 'End of Train' (EOT) devices (which replace the tail lamp, and report brake line pressure via radio) would speed up brake tests in 'one-person' run-around situations.

Well they don't have to report via radio now if we were to do what the FRA wants to do and adopt 'Electronically controlled pneumatic brakes' which, as well as providing various operational advantages over normal braking, have sufficietn bandwidth on the control lines to support a hard-line Locotrol based system.

 

[Boothby97]

Well its an interesting point. I'm not sure a shunter will be stabled at Garston or Seaforth any time soon or that the trains that use these terminals will start dragging a shunter around with them. That said I saw an 08 being delivered to Allerton TMD the other day, anyone know what that was about?

There already is a shunter at Garston (Car Terminal), https://mobile.twitter.com/GBRailfreight/status/437638288162430976
Is used for the shunting of the Dagenham-Garston car terminal, which sometimes employs a GBRf 92 (although a 66 is currently being used).
As for the shunter being delivered to Allerton, I assume this was for hire to Northern Rail who may need it to shunts 319s when they arrive (is the depot electrified?).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is that a definite? Good news if it is!

86701 to be dragged from Barrow Hill to Willesden tomorrow (should get GSMR whilst there) http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/R91746/2014/06/02/advanced

 

[fowler9]

There already is a shunter at Garston (Car Terminal), https://mobile.twitter.com/GBRailfreight/status/437638288162430976
Is used for the shunting of the Dagenham-Garston car terminal, which sometimes employs a GBRf 92 (although a 66 is currently being used).
As for the shunter being delivered to Allerton, I assume this was for hire to Northern Rail who may need it to shunts 319s when they arrive (is the depot electrified?).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


86701 to be dragged from Barrow Hill to Willesden tomorrow (should get GSMR whilst there) http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/R91746/2014/06/02/advanced

I think most of Allerton is under the wires but not all of it.

 

[Harbon 1]

If freight is to be transported from A to B and the route is entirely electrified a diesel loco is to be taxed. Seems quite clear to me.

Freight is hardly transported entirely under the wires. The very nature of the freight in this country means that it cannot be run entirely under the wires without changing to a diesel locomotive to the last part of the journey. For example, you cant load mined or quarried loads, or containerised loads with wires! Or you could use 3rd rail in freight yards and have a fleet of exactly 46 locomotives. Not exactly efficient.

Do you believe running freight trains with a diesel loco from A to B where the route is entirely electrified is a good idea?

Yes. Because its not like the polluting diesel loco is hauling one lorry load wagon around. A fully laden container train, just one, takes a lot of lorries off the road. And running however many we do is saving a lot of pollution so its not even worth thinking about the loco under the wires. Remember where the electricity comes from in the first place....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's not that you actually have a better idea how to stimulate electric locomotive usage, it's that you don't even care, it seems! In that case I believe we are pretty much done here.

We could stimulate electric locomotive usage by actually having some serviceable examples available for freight use, and a freight service that they can be fully utilised on!

Just one final question, out of curiosity, do you think we should bother with freight electrification at all?

No, because as I stated above, and I'm sure someone else has as well, it isn't viable.

 

[Sunbird24]

Just a thought relating to the use of diesel traction under the wires. The users have to pay track access charges.
Am I correct in assuming that these charges include a charge for the use of the electric supply, or is that paid for extra by some other charge?
Is there a way of measuring how much electricity each train uses?
Do trains which have regenerative braking get a discount for feeding power back into the system?
Do diesel-hauled trains have to pay for electric supply even though they do not use it?
All these and more have to be taken into consideration when deciding whether to use whichever form of traction.
A heavy freight train is going to take considerably more power from the wires than even a high speed passenger train. What effect would that have, if any, on other users served by the same power source (sub-station)?

 

[Rhydgaled]

Just a thought relating to the use of diesel traction under the wires. The users have to pay track access charges.
Am I correct in assuming that these charges include a charge for the use of the electric supply, or is that paid for extra by some other charge?
Is there a way of measuring how much electricity each train uses?
Do trains which have regenerative braking get a discount for feeding power back into the system?
Do diesel-hauled trains have to pay for electric supply even though they do not use it?
All these and more have to be taken into consideration when deciding whether to use whichever form of traction.
A heavy freight train is going to take considerably more power from the wires than even a high speed passenger train. What effect would that have, if any, on other users served by the same power source (sub-station)?

I think the charge for electricity used is seperate from track-access. Traditionally this charge has been estimated but some operators having started fitting meters to their trains so they can be billed more accurately for the electricity they use.

 

[The Planner]

I may be incorrect but I think the juice is dealt with via the EC4T (electric current for traction) and ESTA (electrical supply tarriff area) rates and a lot of the charges are based on models and some metering. Its worth 200 odd million quid a year. Re-gen braking does get a discount.

 

[HSTEd]

I can't think of many freight flows myself that don't involve the top loading of hoppers or shipping containers being lowered on to flat bed wagons. How would this work with the FOC's? Would they just have to start buying diesel shunting locos for every distribution point?

You could use a moveable overhead contact bar like they use in various depots.
Furrer and Frey make one I believe.
While it would have to cover the entire length of the train at container depots MGR ones could get away with just having the bar under the chute itself.

 

[trubla]

Noticed this on Realtime trhttp://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/O03166/2014/06/02/advancedains, is this another outing for a 68 for the return on 1213 Daventrty to Coatbridge?

 

[Jedipickles]

Noticed this on Realtime trhttp://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/O03166/2014/06/02/advancedains, is this another outing for a 68 for the return on 1213 Daventrty to Coatbridge?

68004 worked 0Z69 Crewe - Daventry and then it'll work 4S44 as far as Carlisle Kingsmoor I believe

 

[trubla]

Thankyou., got it at Polesworth this time with my camera. Noticed a 66 behind it again just in case!

 

[Sunbird24]

Thankyou., got it at Polesworth this time with my camera. Noticed a 66 behind it again just in case!

Just in case, or to increase the test load?

 

[fgwrich]

68003 Also has been out and about today, moving on it's own from Crewe to Carlisle.

 

[atillathehunn]

Does anybody know/heard a rumour about where the 68s are going to be in the next 24 hours or so? Missed both northbound this afternoon

 

[Peter Sarf]

I would not bother penalising freight operators for using a diesel loco where an electric loco could be used. I would hope that the running costs of an electric loco would be lower than diesel. If its not already cheaper then I don't want to actually add further costs in the form of taxes as overall there is a risk this makes road more attractive. I suspect, as others have said, that a diesel locomotive hauled train is more ecological than the equivalent number of lorries. Rather than chasing the further benefit of electric traction where possible I would promote more transferring of freight from air and road to rail. That's more ecologically sound I hope ?.

As for congestion charging. I never drive into central London because the traffic is too bad and the parking costs too much. Most commuters use rail because they have NO alternative. Mind you, in London, more people use buses the train/tube. But that is still a multiple occupancy vehicle. I use an all zones travel card for London or walk for 20 minutes if going into central Croydon.

You could use a moveable overhead contact bar like they use in various depots.
Furrer and Frey make one I believe.
While it would have to cover the entire length of the train at container depots MGR ones could get away with just having the bar under the chute itself.

Interesting idea. Actually if the freight/container yard was served by trains reversing in then the wires could stop just short of the crane area. Means there would have to be a reversing siding beyond the crane area (alongside the busy main line) for the loco to change ends. Solve that mith MU style trains with a cab at both ends. Personally I wanted to see more research done on the idea of topping and tailing coal trains with 20s - if that had worked then an 86 electric at each end of intermodals would have catered for yards with only the throat electrified. I expect the answer is a last mile engine in an electric locomotive. With the Class 88 DRS are betting some money on this approach after all.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But diesel powered vans and trucks don't pay the congestion charge and as far as I know they carry freight so what’s the difference?

I think there are emissions charges/controls which effectively mean older commercial diesel vehicles (vans and lorries) are excluded from a large part of London. Croydon is largely inside the emissions control area so we are talking about a vast area in comparison to the congestion charge zone.

 

[ac6000cw]

Just in case, or to increase the test load?

Probably 'just in case' - it can get expensive in compensation payments if you break down on the WCML (although I understand that the payments per incident are capped in the case of FOC's at least).

 

[STANDISH]

68003 running light engine Crewe to Carlisle this afternoon. Passed Wigan at about 15.50pm

 

[HSTEd]

Interesting idea. Actually if the freight/container yard was served by trains reversing in then the wires could stop just short of the crane area. Means there would have to be a reversing siding beyond the crane area (alongside the busy main line) for the loco to change ends. Solve that mith MU style trains with a cab at both ends. Personally I wanted to see more research done on the idea of topping and tailing coal trains with 20s - if that had worked then an 86 electric at each end of intermodals would have catered for yards with only the throat electrified. I expect the answer is a last mile engine in an electric locomotive. With the Class 88 DRS are betting some money on this approach after all.

If double ended style trains using EPS/Locotrol are too forward thinking for the industry they could just use a baloon loop to reverse the train and then propell into the siding, that avoids the run-around.

 

[ac6000cw]

Well these days they appear to have gone for interlocks in the form of what appears to amount to super-RETB? (Positive train control and all that).

Re. the US situation - My 'interlocking' remark was meant to be a bit tongue in cheek (but the switches for simple industrial spurs etc. off main lines are quite often not interlocked with the signalling).

The actual situation is very mixed - the busy parts of the system operate much like ours, full interlocking and signalling etc., including full bi-directional CTC working on all lines in multi-track areas quite often. At the other end of the scale, there are a lot of secondary and branch line routes with no formal signalling at all ('dark territory'), using hand-thrown switches at passing loops and 'train orders' transmitted verbally over the radio.

PTC is coming, but it's a mammoth installation task (and running late), and so far it's only mandatory for busy lines/passenger routes/routes that carry hazardous materials frequently, AFAIK.

Well they don't have to report via radio now if we were to do what the FRA wants to do and adopt 'Electronically controlled pneumatic brakes' which, as well as providing various operational advantages over normal braking, have sufficietn bandwidth on the control lines to support a hard-line Locotrol based system.

Yes, true, but ECP brakes seem to be taking a long time to get past the 'production trial' stage - Norfolk Southern have been testing some coal train sets for a while (and liking it, especially in the mountains), and I think BNSF have some intermodal car sets equipped with it for testing. Given that using remotely controlled locos also enables train air brakes to be applied and released via the remote locos as well as at the front (and you get distributed dynamic braking too), I suspect ECP brakes are proving a harder sell to the US railroads than it might seem at first sight.

Anyway, we're getting a bit off-topic here - more appropriate for a 'US railroading' thread somewhere....

 

[Sunbird24]

Update from the Vossloh factory today. Two more unpainted 68s have appeared outside so likely to be 68009 and 68010 so they should be ready to ship by the end of July. I suspect shipping of the next batch is imminent as they all appeared mid-April. 68006 Daring was still in the yard today and another loco was almost hidden in one of the "finishing" sheds.

 

[Joseph.bevan96]

Just in case, or to increase the test load?

The 66 was dead in the consist of the train for insurance but mainly to make it easier when the 68 came off at Kingmoor and the 66 would become the train loco for the final run to Coatbridge.

 

[Sunbird24]

3 more 68s left the factory on Wednesday 4th June 2014 on their journey to the UK. I think they were 68006 Daring, 68007 Valiant and 68008 Avenger as those 3 are no longer in the yard. 68009 was running the full length of the test track this morning, still in its base colour of 2-tone beige plus white ends. This is the colour someone likely mistook for Pullman Livery on 68008 a while back. Another 68, probably 68010, was in the same condition in a compound next to the test track with a group of Euro 4000s for Marathon and ETF.

 

[The Citadel]

Three more 'Starships' on the way then.

 

[fgwrich]

Three more 'Starships' on the way then.

Starships or Warships?

HMS Avenger was a Type 21 warship which saw active service from 1978 to 1994 before being sold on.

HMS Valiant has seen it's name on both a warship and a submarine.

And HMS Daring, well that's both the lead service Type 45 Destroyer and the 7th RN vessel to hold that name.

So much for the Warship theme DRS then!

 

[168lover]

When will we start seeing the Chiltern 68s appearing on the rail?