Class 68 Progress, what's the latest?

[The Planner]

One way of getting freight off the rails I suppose...

 

[ExRes]

If a company cannot afford to buy new electrics or even lease some then they should still pay higher taxes for running diesels under wires. If they can't afford this either then maybe the are not competitive enough for the market?

You're obviously more than entitled to your own opinion so I won't bother again with this subject, do you, by any chance, work for the road transport industry ?, if not I think you're missing your vocation in life

 

[Loki]

Somehow I doubt any rail freight will move to lories if diesel haulage is more expensive than electric when run on entirely electrified routes.

 

[ModernRailways]

Found another video! Certainly sounds loud!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkxfAIyWq80

 

[deltic08]

Where would the electric locos come from ?, there's hardly a glut of them sitting around unused and the cost of any new orders would be prohibitive unless a large batch were split amongst numerous FOCs

If DRS were stopped from running diesels along the WCML, they would soon acquire electrics as they have done with 90034. There are sufficient 90s/92s in store for the traffic on offer. There were 86/2s available not long ago but they were allowed to buy and use 66s over Shap and Beattock when Network Rail wanted to ban diesel-hauled freight north of Carnforth to increase speed and capacity.

GBRf found enough 92s and Colas used 86/7s. There are two Network Rail 86s spare at present that just require all traction motors wiring up

The small order of class 88s is not prohibitive.

 

[Boothby97]

If DRS were stopped from running diesels along the WCML, they would soon acquire electrics as they have done with 90034. There are sufficient 90s/92s in store for the traffic on offer. There were 86/2s available not long ago but they were allowed to buy and use 66s over Shap and Beattock when Network Rail wanted to ban diesel-hauled freight north of Carnforth to increase speed and capacity.



GBRf found enough 92s and Colas used 86/7s. There are two Network Rail 86s spare at present that just require all traction motors wiring up



The small order of class 88s is not prohibitive.

The two Network Rail 86s (86901/902) are now in CF Booths scrapyard in Rotherham. Also DRS only hire 90034 (from DBS) to lease to Virgin Trains for use on the 'Pretendolino'.
And Colas Rail are expected to start hiring 86701 again (from Europhoenix) presumably for use on the Daventry-Euston freight service which was trailed last year.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

The two Network Rail 86s (86901/902) are now in CF Booths scrapyard in Rotherham.

Are they intact or have they already started to be cut up?

 

[Sunbird24]

If a company cannot afford to buy new electrics or even lease some then they should still pay higher taxes for running diesels under wires. If they can't afford this either then maybe the are not competitive enough for the market?

You seem to have something against Diesels in general! The only basic difference between a modern electric loco and a modern diesel-electric loco is the source of the electric power to drive the electric traction motors. Because of it's engine the diesel-electric is heavier which may help in overcoming slip when starting a heavy train but modern bogies are designed to overcome this.
Due to the nature of the loads and types of wagon used modern freight trains are restricted in general to around 60mph (100kmh), some to 70-75mph (110-120 kmh). The real advantages of pure electric traction only start to show at higher speeds. Fast acceleration for a modern freight train is not a factor as it is not intended to stop every few minutes/miles.
Most freight operators do not have electrification installed at both ends of the majority of their routes so their fleets have to be predominantly diesel. In fact, it is not feasible to have electrification at most loading/unloading facilities. To be forced to have an electric locomotive to run one service each way, say 3 times a week, 3 hours each way, would be totally uneconomic as that locomotive cannot be used for anything else!

 

[Boothby97]

Are they intact or have they already started to be cut up?

NR sold them to Europhoenix (who own other 86s), who used them as spares donors before selling them for scrap. Assume there still intact, but will probably be heavily stripped

 

[ExRes]

If DRS were stopped from running diesels along the WCML, they would soon acquire electrics as they have done with 90034. There are sufficient 90s/92s in store for the traffic on offer. There were 86/2s available not long ago but they were allowed to buy and use 66s over Shap and Beattock when Network Rail wanted to ban diesel-hauled freight north of Carnforth to increase speed and capacity.

GBRf found enough 92s and Colas used 86/7s. There are two Network Rail 86s spare at present that just require all traction motors wiring up

The small order of class 88s is not prohibitive.

Why do you say the WCML ?, if diesels were to be prohibited from running under wires I make that the WCML and ECML, in the near future the GW and MML, why just AC, why not DC which would put the whole Southern and South Western out of bounds, then there's the Eastern and the North West of course and so on

86s and 87s are engines of the past and virtually extinct in the UK, try telling Freightliner, DBS and Anglia that you're taking their 90s away from them to share around with the smaller FOCs, that leaves the highly unpopular 92s and new builds, all that would be left to do then would be to send all the diesels to the scrapyards, job done

I think not

 

[Loki]

Why do you say the WCML ?, if diesels were to be prohibited from running under wires I make that the WCML and ECML, in the near future the GW and MML, why just AC, why not DC which would put the whole Southern and South Western out of bounds, then there's the Eastern and the North West of course and so on

That's a strawman. We are talking about taxing for running diesels on entirely electrified routes not banning diesels under wires. And what do you mean unpopular 92? DBS are sending them away to Bulgaria and Romania! Can't exactly complain about lack of electric locos in this case.

 

[ExRes]

That's a strawman. We are talking about taxing for running diesels on entirely electrified routes not banning diesels under wires. And what do you mean unpopular 92? DBS are sending them away to Bulgaria and Romania! Can't exactly complain about lack of electric locos in this case.

What are you talking about ?, if you intend to tax diesels for running on entirely electrified routes then you are effectively banning them by imposing financial penalties, unless you intend to impose such pathetically low penalties that it wouldn't be worth the paperwork to bill them in the first place

What do you classify an entirely electrified route as then ?, are the WCML and ECML in or out of your classification ? how about the Southern ?

As for 92s, just how much work have these locos done in the 20 years since their introduction compared to the time they've sat in storage, DBS are probably sending them to Bulgaria and Romania because they have no use for them here, very much in line with how they've always been thought of

"Can't exactly complain about lack of electric locos in this case", why not ?, what use are stored and unwanted 92s to anyone ?, even if they were all in use and loved to bits by everyone there would still only be 46 of them, hardly likely to cope with replacing dozens of pointlessly sidelined diesels

 

[ilkestonian]

I think FOCs should be prohibited or surcharged for operating diesels on services entirely under the wires.

Nice though it would be to believe this approach was practical, that possibility died with the demise of British Rail.

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

The very reason BR were able to do this sort of thing was one of the reasons for it's downfall; underuse of its assets.

And BR could take a diesel off a passenger service for onward electric haulage and roster the diesel on any type of service back towards its depot. Privatisation has rather limited this sort of flexibility, hasn't it?

 

[Loki]

What are you talking about ?, if you intend to tax diesels for running on entirely electrified routes then you are effectively banning them by imposing financial penalties, unless you intend to impose such pathetically low penalties that it wouldn't be worth the paperwork to bill them in the first place

What do you classify an entirely electrified route as then ?, are the WCML and ECML in or out of your classification ? how about the Southern ?

As for 92s, just how much work have these locos done in the 20 years since their introduction compared to the time they've sat in storage, DBS are probably sending them to Bulgaria and Romania because they have no use for them here, very much in line with how they've always been thought of

"Can't exactly complain about lack of electric locos in this case", why not ?, what use are stored and unwanted 92s to anyone ?, even if they were all in use and loved to bits by everyone there would still only be 46 of them, hardly likely to cope with replacing dozens of pointlessly sidelined diesels

You just claimed on the previous page there weren't enough existing electrics and now the 92s are stored and unwanted? What exactly is your case? Diesels should work on electrified routes because small companies can't afford new electrics? Because there aren't enough existing electrics? Because new electrics are too expensive? Because you like diesels? Which is it?

 

[ilkestonian]

You just claimed on the previous page there weren't enough existing electrics and now the 92s are stored and unwanted? What exactly is your case? Diesels should work on electrified routes because small companies can't afford new electrics? Because there aren't enough existing electrics? Because new electrics are too expensive? Because you like diesels? Which is it?

Whilst not wishing to put words into someone else's mouth, the argument I've put forward in my post above is pretty compelling, regardless of any likes or dislikes, or numbers available.

 

[deltic08]

What are you talking about ?, if you intend to tax diesels for running on entirely electrified routes then you are effectively banning them by imposing financial penalties, unless you intend to impose such pathetically low penalties that it wouldn't be worth the paperwork to bill them in the first place

What do you classify an entirely electrified route as then ?, are the WCML and ECML in or out of your classification ? how about the Southern ?

As for 92s, just how much work have these locos done in the 20 years since their introduction compared to the time they've sat in storage, DBS are probably sending them to Bulgaria and Romania because they have no use for them here, very much in line with how they've always been thought of

"Can't exactly complain about lack of electric locos in this case", why not ?, what use are stored and unwanted 92s to anyone ?, even if they were all in use and loved to bits by everyone there would still only be 46 of them, hardly likely to cope with replacing dozens of pointlessly sidelined diesels

My original post on this point stated that all services entirely under the wires on the WCML i.e. end to end under the wires should be mandatory electric traction to increase uphill speeds to increase capacity. I didn't mention anything about changing to electric under wires.

Interestingly I have just heard that DRS has lost a contract with Malcolm on Daventry-Mossend because the winner DBS was able to use electric traction providing a return trip within 24 hours saving an extra set of wagons and one loco. Q.E.D.

 

[ilkestonian]

My original post on this point stated that all services entirely under the wires on the WCML i.e. end to end under the wires should be mandatory electric traction to increase uphill speeds to increase capacity. I didn't mention anything about changing to electric under wires.

As a matter of interest, who would be in a position to mandate this?

Not Network Rail, as they are obliged to provide open access, aren't they?

And if somehow it was mandated, who would pay the cost of additional locos?

I say additional locos because an FOC couldn't guarantee having enough work under the wires to justify having enough electrics to enable them to operate a "no diesel under the wires" strategy and keep said locos utilised to the degree they would need to make money from them. A go anywhere loco is obviously more flexible in this regard.

Having said all the above, I agree with the absurdity of running so many diesel miles under the wires, I wish an improvement were possible, and I'd suggest the TOCs and FOCs would prefer to use electrics, as they must be cheaper to run.

But without a significant increase in wired mileage (which we are getting, of course), any possible penalty for running diesels under wires would be impossible to justify.

 

[Sunbird24]

It will be interesting to see how the 68s perform on the likes of Beattock and Shap with heavy freight trains. Their cousins, in the shape of the Euro 3000 and 4000 series, appear to be performing well on the Spanish network where the climbs are much more severe, reaching heights between 4-5,000' at times, although the mean is closer to 3,000'. I have never seen them in multiple but I have seen 4 class 269 electrics working from Valencia up (hill) to Albacete.

 

[The Citadel]

My original post on this point stated that all services entirely under the wires on the WCML i.e. end to end under the wires should be mandatory electric traction to increase uphill speeds to increase capacity. I didn't mention anything about changing to electric under wires.

Interestingly I have just heard that DRS has lost a contract with Malcolm on Daventry-Mossend because the winner DBS was able to use electric traction providing a return trip within 24 hours saving an extra set of wagons and one loco. Q.E.D.

Err apart from the fact that DRS gave the services away as they didn't provide big enough margins for doing the work making it too risky and too costly.

 

[ExRes]

You just claimed on the previous page there weren't enough existing electrics and now the 92s are stored and unwanted? What exactly is your case? Diesels should work on electrified routes because small companies can't afford new electrics? Because there aren't enough existing electrics? Because new electrics are too expensive? Because you like diesels? Which is it?

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 ? I consider electrified lines to be ones which have an electric supply, such as virtually every main line in the country now or very soon, ie Great Western and Midland Mainline, or are you able to explain differently ? Do you propose to outlaw the use of diesels by financial penalty on every line in the country ?

My point on 92s is quite clear, they have mostly sat unused and unwanted for 20 years, if they were so popular then they would have been used nonstop since they were made, this is patently not the case and as there are only 46 in existence they really aren't going to fill the gap, are they ?

Yes, new electrics would be expensive, I don't have reference to where I read it but I believe GBrf were quoted as saying that they could not justify the cost of new build electrics

Finally, yes, I do like diesels, I've driven a lot of them, I've also driven 86s and 90s and found them to be just as effective in the work I did with them

 

[Loki]

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 ? I consider electrified lines to be ones which have an electric supply, such as virtually every main line in the country now or very soon, ie Great Western and Midland Mainline, or are you able to explain differently ? Do you propose to outlaw the use of diesels by financial penalty on every line in the country ?

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.

Do you propose to outlaw the use of diesels by financial penalty on every line in the country ?

What are you talking about? Outlawing diesels on every line? This is a strawman again. No one is talking about banning diesels.
Oh, and by the way financial penalty in no way equals practically banning diesels. Has London banned private cars because of the congestion charge? No but it sure is a good incentive to use public transport in the area.

My point on 92s is quite clear, they have mostly sat unused and unwanted for 20 years, if they were so popular then they would have been used nonstop since they were made, this is patently not the case and as there are only 46 in existence they really aren't going to fill the gap, are they ?

Yes, new electrics would be expensive, I don't have reference to where I read it but I believe GBrf were quoted as saying that they could not justify the cost of new build electrics

Finally, yes, I do like diesels, I've driven a lot of them, I've also driven 86s and 90s and found them to be just as effective in the work I did with them

Yes, 92s are underused. Perhaps we should come up with a way to promote electric locos usage? Hmm..... :roll:

Is seems to me you are dogging the questions. What exactly is your case again? Do you believe running freight trains with a diesel loco from A to B where the route is entirely electrified is a good idea?

 

[ExRes]

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.



What are you talking about? Outlawing diesels on every line? This is a strawman again. No one is talking about banning diesels.
Oh, and by the way financial penalty in no way equals practically banning diesels. Has London banned private cars because of the congestion charge? No but it sure is a good incentive to use public transport in the area.



Yes, 92s are underused. Perhaps we should come up with a way to promote electric locos usage? Hmm..... :roll:

Is seems to me you are dogging the questions. What exactly is your case again? Do you believe running freight trains with a diesel loco from A to B where the route is entirely electrified is a good idea?

So, yes then, you intend to penalise the use of diesels from almost every line in the country by financial penalty, as I said before if you put a charge on their use then you will make them economically non-viable, if you put a low charge then you're wasting everyones time and money and your surcharge will be ignored, so that's a waste of time

I have no idea what a strawman is, perhaps you could use Engish to explain it, the fact is many motorists have had to stop using their cars because of the congestion charge, some can get round it, some have to use overcrowded electric services to get into work, some use polluting diesel buses and taxis, that's being environmental by using public transport I guess, while some have to pay the charge or lose their jobs, if I'd stayed at Willesden and worked 24 hour shifts how would I have got to or home from work when there were no public transport options running ?

Once again, there were 46 class 92s built, how do you think they will replace all the 66s for instance ?, so what's the point in promoting them, especially when they've been hardly used and not wanted for 20 years

Again I have no idea what 'dogging' is supposed to refer to, my case is that you use the locos that have been built and paid for, ordering a large and costly fleet of electrics to replace almost new diesels is ludicrous, when they are due to be replaced then all the FOCs can get together and try to order whatever is required at the time at the best possible price to sustain the railfreight industry, not for some nod at the EU and its questionable environmental policy

 

[Sunbird24]

Class 92s were built for a specific purpose - to operate freights through the Channel Tunnel. To this end they were fitted with expensive equipment which was not required for the rest of the UK network. Many were actually owned by SNCF. Most drivers were not trained on them because they did not have jobs which involved driving through the Channel Tunnel. For a long time they spent their lives waiting for freight services which did not materialise, partly due to cost reasons. In theory they could operate on electric power from Southampton to the north, but only via London which is not really an option. I suspect that in those days anyone who wanted to hire them was being asked to pay the earth so they went elsewhere.

 

[Loki]

So, yes then, you intend to penalise the use of diesels from almost every line in the country by financial penalty, as I said before if you put a charge on their use then you will make them economically non-viable, if you put a low charge then you're wasting everyones time and money and your surcharge will be ignored, so that's a waste of time

Entirely not true. Penalty tax is not even remotely black or white and there are cases where you would rather pay tax while other times you would stick to electrics. If you think tax either equals ban or it's useless you are mistaken.

I have no idea what a strawman is, perhaps you could use Engish to explain it,

Sure, I can use English to explain it. Its a logical fallacy where one misrepresent the opponent's argument.

Once again, there were 46 class 92s built, how do you think they will replace all the 66s for instance ?, so what's the point in promoting them, especially when they've been hardly used and not wanted for 20 years

Pretty sure you don't need to replace event remotely all of the 66's. Do you think all 66's run services on entirely electrified routes? I think not.
The reason I brought up the 92's is because of your first objection to deltic08's proposition which is obviously invalid.

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

 

[RichmondCommu]

If a company cannot afford to buy new electrics or even lease some then they should still pay higher taxes for running diesels under wires. ?

In that case the competition between FOC's would be limited, rail freight costs would increase and eventually customers would switch to road haulage firms. Sounds a like a plan!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And Colas Rail are expected to start hiring 86701 again (from Europhoenix) presumably for use on the Daventry-Euston freight service which was trailed last year.

Is that a definite? Good news if it is!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Oh, and by the way financial penalty in no way equals practically banning diesels. Has London banned private cars because of the congestion charge? No but it sure is a good incentive to use public transport in the area.

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?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

There is no way that diesels will be banned from every mile or every line in the country. Probably very few freight lines are electrified and some freight lines it would probably be dangerous to have electrified (flammable/explosive vapours). How would trains on them lines access the main line without being hauled by a diesel?

 

[HSTEd]

Couple up to a diesel shunter that could manouevre the train from the 'reception area' through the unwireable area (which is probably going to be a few hundred yards long - if that) to the loading facility and back again.

A Class 01-alike costs almost nothing compared to full power locomotives.

If the freight industry actually moved out of the Victorian era and deployed things like locotrol and electronically controlled braking systems this becomes far more practical as most fixed formation freight rakes [which almost all freight is these days] would have a cab vehicle (whether locomotive or other) at both ends.

No more run-rounds, faster brake release tests and the shunter can just attach to whatever end is convenient.

 

[ac6000cw]

If the freight industry actually moved out of the Victorian era and deployed things like locotrol and electronically controlled braking systems this becomes far more practical as most fixed formation freight rakes [which almost all freight is these days] would have a cab vehicle (whether locomotive or other) at both ends.

No more run-rounds, faster brake release tests and the shunter can just attach to whatever end is convenient.

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?)

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.

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.

 

[Sunbird24]

For those who do not seem to know there is already a system in Europe whereby the loco(s) in the middle or (rear?) of the train can be controlled by radio from the lead loco. Known a Project Marathon, it has already been tested with French BB37000 locomotives in January this year and then with a pair of Euro 4000 locomotives in April. In this case the idea is to couple two long, heavy freights together to share a path when they are both using the same route for part of the journey. The tests are reported to have been successful and commercial operations should start by 2016. The only work required is to install the remote control equipment on sufficient locomotives and provide some more loops of 1.5kms minimum to hold the trains. The first four routes will be in France. More information can be found here: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...oject-marathon-tests-long-freight-trains.html and here: http://www.globalrailnews.com/2014/04/14/marathon-train-completes-diesel-test/
This same system can be adapted for other uses as required.

 

[The Planner]

Going to be a long time before we get anything close to that considering we have a complete lack of 775m loops as it is, let alone 1500m.