Should the class 60 be fully restored to frontline service?

[BananaRepublic]

I'm playing devils advocate ....... so locos should never receive a major overhaul, they should be simply scrapped and replaced with new?

Hypothetically speaking, if it was a practical reality and the economic case stacked up, that would make sense.

In a hypothetically ideal world, a loco would require no maintenance whatsoever; would be available 24/7/365 and would have enough work to keep it running for as much time as was practically possible during its lifetime.
Minimise the overall cost and maximise its earning potential.
Of course the reality is that none of that is remotely possible.
However, the closer you can work towards such goals, the more efficient the use of the asset will be.
All idle or down time is a loss of potential revenue; all maintenance is a cost overhead.

When these machines are ordered and financed, calculations are made to work out how to cover the high purchase and financing costs over a nominal practical working lifetime; taking into account various estimated whole of life costs, such as maintenance.
The leasing cost will be derived from this process, but importantly, the loco will also appear as an asset on somebody's accounts, i.e. the owner's, who invariably are a ROSCO or finance group. That is actually quite a key point.
As an asset (positive), they offset the negative side of the balance sheet.

The resulting expected life of the loco to cover the finance etc, may be 20, 25, 30 or more years, but it doesn't matter how long it is, if the plan is viable and sustainable through that period..

Again hypothetically, if someone could miraculously produce a loco that could be written down over 10 years (which they can't) and then the economics at the end of 10 years said scrapping the loco was the most cost effective option then that would be fine.
Agin, I'm using that as an extreme example to highlight the point.

There is no holy grail in keeping these machines longer than is necessary.
If they can be useful beyond their projected (financed) lifetime, that may be financially beneficial too, either to the original operator, or to another company. In the latter case, the financial clock will be reset back to 0, on an entirely different economic plan.


.

 

[Jamesb1974]

Deleted

 

[BananaRepublic]

James...
Plus one, Like, Agree or whatever.

 

[DownSouth]

I'm playing devils advocate ....... so locos should never receive a major overhaul, they should be simply scrapped and replaced with new?

If they are lemons that cost too much to maintain (e.g. the Class 58) then the answer is yes. It's better to cut your losses than to fall for the sunk cost fallacy - but even better to do your due diligence during procurement and avoid getting stuck with a lemon in the first place.

But if they are reliable locomotives which don't spend long periods of time out of service and a good mid-life refresh will get another 15+ years of trouble-free service before another one is needed, then you'd go for that mid-life refresh rather than procure new locos.

A business would assess this on the basis of quantitative measures, unlike a state railway which can be subject to many other strings being pulled.

I suspect (I don't know) that with a national fleet of close to 500, parts availability for the 66 isn't going to be a problem either. Not sure you can say that about a fleet of 100 class 60s, which are already 25 years old.

Even more importantly, as they use a EMD JT42 powertrain the Class 66 and 67 fleets share common parts with thousands of other locos around the world. Progress Rail still make spares for many of the older EMD locos and won't be stopping any time soon.

For that reason, even the Class 59 would be better than a Class 60 if you were looking to get hold of a handful of second-hand locos. As a rebodied version of the SD40-2, they are part of a fleet well over 4,500 strong and present on every continent other than Antarctica.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Could a new engine phyiscally fit inside the engine bay of a class 60 that would meet all the emissions regs

 

[D365]

For that reason, even the Class 59 would be better than a Class 60 if you were looking to get hold of a handful of second-hand locos. As a rebodied version of the SD40-2, they are part of a fleet well over 4,500 strong and present on every continent other than Antarctica.

If the Class 59 had been ordered instead (100 locomotives to be built at Crewe), I do wonder if the fleet would have been better utilised, in conjunction with the Class 66.

 

[BananaRepublic]

Could a new engine phyiscally fit inside the engine bay of a class 60 that would meet all the emissions regs

It was reported at the time (mid 00's ???) that EWS looked at a re-engining program, but they didn't progress it, presumably due to the cost versus the perceived (at the time) likely future need for these locos.

I think it less likely today with the remaining life on the locos.
It would probably need a very expensive replacement of most electrical and other systems.
Never say never though.

 

[Chris Wallis]

The leasing companies. Angel Trains, Porterbrook, Evershot Rail, Beacon Rail etc etc. The vast majority of companies own very little rolling stock outright. Most of it is leased from one or more of the the ROSCOs (ROlling StoCk Operating company)

One of the errors of privatisation was that when the ROSCOs were set up, their role was to lease passenger stock to the franchised operators. The FOCs though (not including later entrants to the market) were given ownership of their locomotives, which lead to EWS (as was) stockpiling large numbers of surplus locos and letting them rot when they could have been offered to other operators (including passenger operators in some cases).
The policy of storing locos once they'd reached a certain number of engine hours was flawed too (the most reliable locomotives obviously would run out of hours first, meaning only the "demics" were then available!) but that's another story...

Yeah, I understand that the Rolling Stock ownership/leasing R&R's for the TOC's and FOC's are different.

But what I find confusing is when Govt's make announcements that they are investing '£X' in new Rolling Stock....which then appear to be leased from the ROSCO's.

Or have I misunderstood?

Also, what happens in situations where Chiltern are leasing 68's from DRS? Have DRS purchased these themselves, or are they leasing them from a ROSCO and then leasing them to Chiltern.....which can't make any sense.....

 

[D365]

Also, what happens in situations where Chiltern are leasing 68's from DRS? Have DRS purchased these themselves, or are they leasing them from a ROSCO and then leasing them to Chiltern.....which can't make any sense.....

Beacon Rail owns the (to be 25-strong) Class 68 fleet, DRS are the long-term lessors. Why doesn't a sub-lease make sense?

 

[CosherB]

Also, what happens in situations where Chiltern are leasing 68's from DRS? Have DRS purchased these themselves, or are they leasing them from a ROSCO and then leasing them to Chiltern.....which can't make any sense.....

DRS 68's are owned by Beacon Rail and leased to DRS (DAB Move beat me to it!).

And why not? Chiltern have contracted DRS to provide locos to operate their services. All the 'risk' remains with DRS as they will be responsible for maintenance etc ...... exactly the same arrangement as DBS providing 67's to Chiltern (DBS lease the 67s from Angel Trains). The most obvious alternative arrangement I can think of is FGW and their 57/6's for the Night Riviera, which are leased directly from Porterbrook.

 

[BananaRepublic]

DRS will be tied to a long term lease on the 68's and 88's.
Possibly something in the order of 15, 20 or more years.
Chiltern wouldn't be able to commit to any long term contract and are therefore able to sub-lease from DRS for a much shorter contract term (for e.g. anything from 2 to 5 years).

 

[alexl92]

Just out of interest, how do things work when a company is sub-leasing locos from two companies? So during the introduction of the 68s, Chiltern had both the DRS 68s and the DBS 67s on lease.. (and iirc the odd 67 still works occasionally) - so how do they manage whose locos run which services?

 

[richieb1971]

http://www.railmagazine.com/trains/current-trains/making-the-class-60s-super-again

This is the most comprehensive read on the subject matter with quotes coming from the DBS chiefs themselves.

Lots of love for the locos, lots of enthusiasm. It even states all 100 could be made super if the demand was there.

 

[CosherB]

http://www.railmagazine.com/trains/current-trains/making-the-class-60s-super-again

This is the most comprehensive read on the subject matter with quotes coming from the DBS chiefs themselves.

Lots of love for the locos, lots of enthusiasm. It even states all 100 could be made super if the demand was there.

I also think there is a lot of DBS spin in the article. I've no doubt that the Toton team are doing sterling work in the Super 60 project, but ultimately, what mix of 'versatile' 66s versus more 'specialist' 60s DBS need will dictate how many Tugs are returned to traffic.

Items in the 60s favour are that as the economy grows and business picks up, DBS will be looking to build up further contracts needing further locos. With no obvious new build diesel freight loco to match/replace the likes of the 60s and 66s, DBS has a readily available pool of assets that can be refurbished and brought back into use as required. I'd be very surprised, however, if all 100 made it back into use.

None of which assists the likes of Freightliner, GBRf, DRS et al who will have to continue scratching around for existing 47s, 56s, 57s and their like for the time being ....

 

[richieb1971]

Colas are using 60's on light loads quite a lot of the time. So having a specialist loco is better than not having any loco at all.

The 60's are the only British loco left which have heavy duty loads from what I've seen. Although there is a mix of British traction left on the rails, those that are not 60's generally do light work moves. I've seen a couple of freights with 56's that are quite heavy though, but not very often.

 

[Jamesb1974]

Deleted

 

[DownSouth]

Yeah, I understand that the Rolling Stock ownership/leasing R&R's for the TOC's and FOC's are different.

But what I find confusing is when Govt's make announcements that they are investing '£X' in new Rolling Stock....which then appear to be leased from the ROSCO's.

Or have I misunderstood?

Not a misunderstanding, but a need for a more deeper understanding that follows the money all the way to its source.

• The ROSCO pays the manufacturer for the new build vehicles.
• The money that the ROSCO uses to pay for the vehicles comes from the TOC.
• A large portion of the money that the TOC uses to pay the ROSCO comes from the government in the form of (a) franchise subsidies and (b) funding targeted specifically at the rolling stock.

 

[richieb1971]

Sounds like the TOC doesn't need a source of revenue at all.

 

[Jamesb1974]

Deleted

 

[BananaRepublic]

• The ROSCO pays the manufacturer for the new build vehicles.
• The money that the ROSCO uses to pay for the vehicles comes from the TOC.
• A large portion of the money that the TOC uses to pay the ROSCO comes from the government in the form of (a) franchise subsidies and (b) funding targeted specifically at the rolling stock.

• The ROSCO working with their financiers pays the manufacturer for the new build vehicles.
• The money that the ROSCO uses to pay for the vehicles comes from the finance source
• The money from the finance source is repaid from the leasing fees paid by the TOC.
• A large portion of the money that the TOC uses to pay the ROSCO comes from fare income and/or government in the form of (a) franchise subsidies and (b) funding targeted specifically at the rolling stock.

The ROSCO and Finance lenders may be one and the same (e.g. a Bank), but more likely the lender is a finance group or consortia put together for the particular deal.
Increasingly, the ROSCO is a manufacturer, or manufacturer backed.



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

....But what I find confusing is when Govt's make announcements that they are investing '£X' in new Rolling Stock....which then appear to be leased from the ROSCO's......

The Government don't spend anything on rolling stock, even on those unusual occasions when they underwrite and place the orders themselves (IEP and Thameslink).
All the money comes from lenders through the finance arrangements put in place to pay for the stock.

What the Government do spend, is departmental money in getting involved with this aspect of running the railways. In the case of the IEP, they have spent a huge amount of money running the procurement process, but not on any trains ordered under that program.
The Class 800 series SET's ordered by the IEP are being paid for by a consortia of finance companies, under the management of a division of HSBC.

Anyway, that's off topic and has nothing to do with freight locos or the FOCs.

 

[Chris Wallis]

Beacon Rail owns the (to be 25-strong) Class 68 fleet, DRS are the long-term lessors. Why doesn't a sub-lease make sense?

It didn't make any sense to me because I would have thought it would be cheaper for Chiltern to lease direct from Beacon Rail, rather than sub-lease from DRS/DB.....but that has been explained by other posts.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

• The ROSCO working with their financiers pays the manufacturer for the new build vehicles.
• The money that the ROSCO uses to pay for the vehicles comes from the finance source
• The money from the finance source is repaid from the leasing fees paid by the TOC.
• A large portion of the money that the TOC uses to pay the ROSCO comes from fare income and/or government in the form of (a) franchise subsidies and (b) funding targeted specifically at the rolling stock.

The ROSCO and Finance lenders may be one and the same (e.g. a Bank), but more likely the lender is a finance group or consortia put together for the particular deal.
Increasingly, the ROSCO is a manufacturer, or manufacturer backed.



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


The Government don't spend anything on rolling stock, even on those unusual occasions when they underwrite and place the orders themselves (IEP and Thameslink).
All the money comes from lenders through the finance arrangements put in place to pay for the stock.

What the Government do spend, is departmental money in getting involved with this aspect of running the railways. In the case of the IEP, they have spent a huge amount of money running the procurement process, but not on any trains ordered under that program.
The Class 800 series SET's ordered by the IEP are being paid for by a consortia of finance companies, under the management of a division of HSBC.

Anyway, that's off topic and has nothing to do with freight locos or the FOCs.

Thank you, and the others who posted, for taking the time to explain how this works.

I still feel the way Govts make announcements about the purchase of new rolling stock is mid-leading.

 

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

It even states all 100 could be made super if the demand was there

Just like HS4 could run from Sumburgh to Campbeltown if the demand was there. But it isn't, and never will be, so it will never happen. Surely this is obvious?

 

[richieb1971]

It is obvious that the demand will not be there for DBS alone.

But as with most things in life (especially in my life) as soon as you get rid of something you suddenly need it.

 

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

But as with most things in life (especially in my life) as soon as you get rid of something you suddenly need it.

But nobody in this case is getting rid of anything! DBS have decided to hang onto most (maybe all) of their remaining 60s. Meanwhile other operators are investing in modern traction (68s, 70s, 88s). I suspect DRS would have chosen the new locos even had a bunch of the stored 60s been offered to them.

 

[wensley]

I suspect DRS would have chosen the new locos even had a bunch of the stored 60s been offered to them.

More than likely, 60mph limited locos with no ETS/ETH doesn't exactly fit the bill for DRS, whereas the 68s are really proving their worth now on the Chiltern and ScotRail contracts, as well as on Class 4 traffic etc.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

I dont think it is possible to ressurect all 100 60's anyway, unless there are spare engined. I believe 60081 put a leg out in spectacular fashion rendering that block knackered, so theres one out for the count!

 

[CosherB]

I dont think it is possible to ressurect all 100 60's anyway, unless there are spare engined. I believe 60081 put a leg out in spectacular fashion rendering that block knackered, so theres one out for the count!

Have you contacted MAN to confirm that assertion?

http://www.mandieselturbo.co.uk/0000496/Products/Mirrlees-Blackstone.html

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Engine failure was the reason given by EWS why IKB was withdrawn in the first place.

 

[richieb1971]

From what I heard back in the early EWS days, words to the effect of "not using British traction" was touted about. Hence the 250 purchases of 66's.

Here is a quote from tugtracker stating average working hours per annum, then and now!

However the availability and to some extent reliability of the fleet has always been poor in comparison the North American GMs Classes 59 & 66. In recent times a series of modifications through service experience, both with BR and with post-privatisation EWS has seen a marked improvement in the fleet availability to around 88 - 90% with each locomotive now managing an average of 2000 hours work per annum, during BR days the average was around 1000 hours per annum.

 

[ExRes]

From what I heard back in the early EWS days, words to the effect of "not using British traction" was touted about. Hence the 250 purchases of 66's.

I know it sounds as though I'm being pedantic but, EWS purchased absolutely nothing, the 66s and 67s were purchased by Banks/Finance Companies

EWS trashed most of the hardware they received and mortgaged much of the rest when they were given most of the BR freight sector but many seem to falsely think that they were investors