Why isn't the traction crisis leading to an increase in electrical hauling of freight?

[USRailFan]

So, from what is being said in these forums, several of the big operators are having a shortage of (diesel) traction. At the same time a number of lines have recently been electrified, and there is a number of electric locomotives languishing in storage - both Class 86s, 90s and even the relatively modern and powerful Class 92s. One would thing it would make sense to bring these locos out of storage to haul freight on electrified lines, and then free up the diesels now running long distances under wires to run freight elsewhere? Or is there something banal I'm overlooking?

 

[Domh245]

The lack of through electrified routes means that there aren't really any flows that can go to electric haul, often you have routes that are almost all electrified, barring the odd chord or terminal, but that means that you can't then run them as an a electric service, and it makes more sense to just run them as diesel throughout for operational convenience.

Also, I think it's only really GBRf who are short of diesel traction because they're expanding so much, the "old guard" (DBC, Freightliner, DRS) seem to be doing fine in terms of traction

 

[USRailFan]

The lack of through electrified routes means that there aren't really any flows that can go to electric haul, often you have routes that are almost all electrified, barring the odd chord or terminal, but that means that you can't then run them as an a electric service, and it makes more sense to just run them as diesel throughout for operational convenience.

A fair point, although there would in many cases likely be intermediate terminals suitable for changing from one traction mode to another.

 

[Domh245]

A fair point, although there would in many cases likely be intermediate terminals suitable for changing from one traction mode to another.

True, but changing locos means having additional drivers to do the shunting, and having to spend time shunting around. It's easier, cheaper, and quicker to just run the train as diesel throughout.

 

[NSEFAN]

A fair point, although there would in many cases likely be intermediate terminals suitable for changing from one traction mode to another.

Freight companies want to run with minimum costs, so if swapping traction was more cost effective then I'm sure they would be doing that. There are some cases where it does happen (for example, electric hauled Freightliners swapping to diesels at Ipswich for the short run to Felixstowe), but in general what Domh245 holds true.

 

[HSTEd]

The cost of locomotive swaps and such decrease with the number of freight runs being operated over a given route.
If all freight in the country was operated by one operator then locomotive changes would likely be more favourable because there would be fewer locomotives sitting around doing nothing.

And remember as it is, there is no serious driver on freight operators to restrain costs because the government want more freight to move by rail and will pay to achieve that - and all the operators know it.

This is also partially the reason the freight operators continue to operate 50 year+ old locomotives, fuel and maintenance costs can be more easily claimed as increased subsidy than otherwise.

 

[richieb1971]

The Class 88 is a step in the right direction. Where is a dual mode model of locomotive capable of both diesel and electric traction in the same unit.

Almost all electrified lines are north and south where as freight almost always deviates from this alignment. We need more East west lines to be electrified. Once that is done you will see a major shift from diesel to electric traction. Also you cannot lift boxes under the wires, therefore an electric locomotive must be detached before it enters the point where the crane is stock piling.

Freightliner depots/docks should have 3rd rail system. If not beside the main line, one down the middle. Build locos accordingly.

 

[geoffk]

I visited Australia in 2009 and saw that all the coal traffic in New South Wales had gone over to diesel haulage throughout, despite running mostly over the electrified Sydney suburban system. The electric locos have been scrapped and many new diesels built. This is evidently in the commercial interests of the freight operator but of course it has meant that 100% of the cost of maintaining the OHLE falls on the passenger operator. In the UK and elsewhere in Europe sectorisation and the advent of open-access has had a similar effect, not helped by the need to change between AC and DC and different voltages at national boundaries, where using diesels can overcome the high cost of complex multi-system electric locos.

 

[GB]

Freightliner depots/docks should have 3rd rail system. If not beside the main line, one down the middle. Build locos accordingly.

Why on earth would you want to not only increase expenditure but also introduce a significant safety risk when a simple shunt loco or two can do the job just fine?

 

[Dieseldriver]

Why on earth would you want to not only increase expenditure but also introduce a significant safety risk when a simple shunt loco or two can do the job just fine?

Shush GB, that guy clearly knows his stuff...

 

[Intercity Exec]

So, from what is being said in these forums, several of the big operators are having a shortage of (diesel) traction. At the same time a number of lines have recently been electrified, and there is a number of electric locomotives languishing in storage - both Class 86s, 90s and even the relatively modern and powerful Class 92s. One would thing it would make sense to bring these locos out of storage to haul freight on electrified lines, and then free up the diesels now running long distances under wires to run freight elsewhere? Or is there something banal I'm overlooking?

Further to the other points made regarding this, the stock simply isn't as available as it appears to be.

The Class 86s have been broken for parts one by one to keep Freightliner 86s in action so none are now left that could be used.

The 90s and 92s are operated by DB, who don't have a diesel traction shortage, and have been out of use for over 10 years in open store, as a result a lot of work would be required to bring them back to a working state (although it isn't impossible to do, GBRf are returning a 92 to work after over 15 years of storage, others could follow if it makes commercial sense for the amount of work required). Also, DB are keeping their hands on a large number of Class 60s (unless a predetermined financial threshold is passed which makes financial and commercial sense but upsets a lot of people who would like to see them working) so it is unlikely that they would allow 90s or 92s to go either.

The next electric locomotives to become available will the the Class 90s used by Greater Anglia, their availability could be an interesting measure for how interested the freight companies are in hauling trains with electric traction. 91s will also become available, but they aren't currently suited to hauling freight and would require considerable changes in order to be, I would imagine that such changes would be so expensive as to make it untenable.

 

[USRailFan]

The next electric locomotives to become available will the the Class 90s used by Greater Anglia, their availability could be an interesting measure for how interested the freight companies are in hauling trains with electric traction.

I Guess Freightliner might want these to enable them to retire the 50+-year old 86s?

 

[TheEdge]

I Guess Freightliner might want these to enable them to retire the 50+-year old 86s?

The current going rumour is yes, some or all of the GA 90s will be going to Freightliner to dispatch the 86s. Although I had also heard there is a possibility of some of them going to LNER (Or EC, or whatever they are next month)

 

[The Planner]

Almost all electrified lines are north and south where as freight almost always deviates from this alignment. We need more East west lines to be electrified. Once that is done you will see a major shift from diesel to electric traction. Also you cannot lift boxes under the wires, therefore an electric locomotive must be detached before it enters the point where the crane is stock piling.

Apart from Felixstowe to Nuneaton and the bio-mass stuff to/from Liverpool, I would argue there isn't a massive amount of East West traffic. All the big Intermodal flows are north south, even Felixstowe traffic goes via London and not cross country.

 

[Sybic26]

re comment #9, I understood that the new class 88 locomotives are also fitted with a diesel engine to enable them to operate in non electrified yards and other such locations.

 

[geoffk]

Apart from Felixstowe to Nuneaton and the bio-mass stuff to/from Liverpool, I would argue there isn't a massive amount of East West traffic. All the big Intermodal flows are north south, even Felixstowe traffic goes via London and not cross country.

I could never understand why Felixstowe wasn't a priority for electrification, but now that the plan is to reroute many of the intermodals away from the North London/GE route to run via Peterborough and Ipswich these will switch to diesel throughout.

 

[broadgage]

The Class 88 is a step in the right direction. Where is a dual mode model of locomotive capable of both diesel and electric traction in the same unit.

Almost all electrified lines are north and south where as freight almost always deviates from this alignment. We need more East west lines to be electrified. Once that is done you will see a major shift from diesel to electric traction. Also you cannot lift boxes under the wires, therefore an electric locomotive must be detached before it enters the point where the crane is stock piling.

Freightliner depots/docks should have 3rd rail system. If not beside the main line, one down the middle. Build locos accordingly.

I cant foresee any significant expansion of 3rd rail systems, the HSE are strongly opposed to expanding a system that uses a lethal voltage exposed at ankle height.
Depots and dockyards with frequent foot traffic and road vehicle movements would seem to be an even greater risk that a securely fenced main line. In many dockyards, the rails are more or less flush with a road surface, more like tramway routes than a mainline, you cant realistically install conductor rail in such situations.
The future is overhead electrification at 25KV for main lines, and battery or diesel power within dockyards and freight terminals where overhead electrification is impossible.

 

[D365]

The current going rumour is yes, some or all of the GA 90s will be going to Freightliner to dispatch the 86s. Although I had also heard there is a possibility of some of them going to LNER (Or EC, or whatever they are next month)

Eh? Why would LNER be taking any Class 90s once the IEPs are on stream?

 

[HSTEd]

The future is overhead electrification at 25KV for main lines, and battery or diesel power within dockyards and freight terminals where overhead electrification is impossible.

In which case the future is no electrification at all for a generation.
The 25kV programme's ridiculous cost overruns, combined with the apparent success of the bi-mode programme mean that there will be no business case for electrification for 20 years or more.
The cost estimates are all junk now.

 

[James James]

I cant foresee any significant expansion of 3rd rail systems, the HSE are strongly opposed to expanding a system that uses a lethal voltage exposed at ankle height.
Depots and dockyards with frequent foot traffic and road vehicle movements would seem to be an even greater risk that a securely fenced main line. In many dockyards, the rails are more or less flush with a road surface, more like tramway routes than a mainline, you cant realistically install conductor rail in such situations.
The future is overhead electrification at 25KV for main lines, and battery or diesel power within dockyards and freight terminals where overhead electrification is impossible.

The solutions you mention are already happening:

Alstom make a hybrid (diesel + battery), which is already in use on docks:
http://www.alstom.com/products-serv...oducts/prima-shunting-and-works-locomotives-/

And bi-modes are being used for last-mile:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SBB-CFF-FFS_Eem_923

However "3rd" rail isn't impossible - ground level power supply is becoming more and more common for trams - the rail is is divided into short sections, with only the sections under the vehicle being powered. Or you could use an old fashioned conduit. I suspect both of these solutions are however more expensive than hybrid/pure diesel/battery, and hence unlikely to appear in docks/last mile distribution (whereas trams both can't be made diesel, and can't use OHLE for political reasons).

 

[HSTEd]

Also it is worth noting that we now have overhead rail solutions that can be swung out of the way when required. They are often used in depots - but conceptually there is no reason you couldn't have one on a siding at a port or similar where it could swing out of the way to allow cranes to load and unload containers.

 

[D365]

The cost estimates have been sabotaged now.

Fixed.

 

[HSTEd]

Fixed.

So there is a giant conspiracy that has prevented Network Rail delivering what it said it could on the timescales it said it could for the price it said it could?

The programme was catastrophically mishandled and as a result electrification is dead.

 

[D365]

So there is a giant conspiracy that has prevented Network Rail delivering what it said it could on the timescales it said it could for the price it said it could?

DfT, ORR et al. have to take a share of the blame. Tinkering with the scope and regulatory aspects for a number of years during the course of the programme only exasperated the issues.

The programme was catastrophically mishandled and as a result electrification is dead.

Hasn’t it been talked about that the numbers for the MML are being fiddled so that the Grayling can justify his fantasy bi-modes...

 

[HSTEd]

DfT, ORR et al. have to take a share of the blame. Tinkering with the scope and regulatory aspects for a number of years during the course of the programme only exasperated the issues.

Doesn't change that the magical technology that Network Rail promised was going to make their all singing all dancing Series 1 tech cheaper to install than Mark 3 derived equipment simply doesn't work.

Hasn’t it been talked about that the numbers for the MML are being fiddled so that the Grayling can justify his fantasy bi-modes...

The MML numbers used by Grayling are just as defensible as the ones used in the original analysis.
And the price of the electrification equipment is now three or four times what NR promised.

 

[spookywestie]

They are only rumours about 90s displacing the 86 fleet. The fact Freightliner are planning mods such as rebuilt cab desks and are refurbishing the bogies under the whole fleet suggests otherwise.
There is simply no need to replace them.

 

[GB]

Also it is worth noting that we now have overhead rail solutions that can be swung out of the way when required. They are often used in depots - but conceptually there is no reason you couldn't have one on a siding at a port or similar where it could swing out of the way to allow cranes to load and unload containers.

Any further detail on that? I am struggling to see how and where the overheads would swing out the way in a container terminal...

 

[HSTEd]

Any further detail on that? I am struggling to see how and where the overheads would swing out the way in a container terminal...

This, admittedly rather crude GIF shows the bar pivoting.

This with somewhat longer swing arms would enable it to move far enough away from the track to enable a crane to drop containers onto the train or lift them off.

 

[edwin_m]

It's perfectly possible for electric trains to serve a container terminal. The most usual way is to provide a run-round on the approach, from which the loco propels the train into the terminal. The wires stop just before the loading area.

 

[InOban]

Excuse my ignorance, but given the collapse in coal haulage, why is there a traction shortage?