Why Foreign electrics are the best locomotives

[Phoenix]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1utpxU6gJQ&feature=related

Just fully watch this video and the take a look at these facts

1.We have not had any new electric locomotives for 16 years.

2.Companies currently run under the wires with diesel locomotives.

3.In this country we have only 5 classes of electric locomotive (Excluding the Le Shuttle locomotives)

4.We only have Three TOC's who use electric locomotives to haul stock
(i Virgin - Don't have much choice over the matter)
(ii NXEA -All handy down locomotives from Virgin)
(iii NXEC -Fair enough there we have a decent amount of useage and have a pretty high place on the roster)

5.We have only ever had 12 classes of electric locomotive 2 of which were prototypes 5 of which were a precursor to the class 86.

6.There is absolutely no current talk of replacements for our older electrics and no ideas on how to boost electric locomotive useage.

(In the thread I refer to AC UK locomotives)

So please if you think differently let me know

 

[90019]

4.We only have Three TOC's who use electric locomotives to haul stock
(i Virgin - Don't have much choice over the matter)
(ii NXEA -All handy down locomotives from Virgin)
(iii NXEC -Fair enough there we have a decent amount of useage and have a pretty high place on the roster)

There's four - FSR use 90s on the Sleeper.

 

[mumrar]

Whilst we don't have many modern electric locos, that doesn't mean it's a dire situation. We've had masses of new stock introduced over the last 10 years, just because they're units doesn't mean it's a problem. Most world renowned services (in terms of speed) are units such as the Shinkansen services, TGV, ICE, AVE, Pendolino etc. The fact we haven't ordered any new ones means very little, how long has it been since we ordered twin engine diesels (far more practical if one engine fails it can still run). Whilst a lot of european countries have a lot of electric locos, some like Poland still run export based on the Class 83 and some copies thereof after throwing up the iron curtain. As for diesel under the wires, we have 3 major mainlines that have wires. The West Coast, East Coast and East Anglian. Apart from that it's little pockets of inter-urban schemes. The main advantage for freight to use diesel is during power supply problems and for flexibility when diversions are needed. Whilst I agree a lot of European electric locos are good, lets not forget the Class 92. Whilst not a business success they are a phenomenal loco. The fact they aren't a success for such a small fleet just leads me to believe we no longer require passenger locomotives, electrically powered or otherwise.

 

[jopsuk]

Diesels under the wires also saves on using shunters at container depots, and is the only viable solution on a coal Merry Go Round service.

As pointed out, almost all new passenger stock worldwide, and especially High Speed and commuter, is unit-based. The Asutrian "RailJet" is an oddity, created by an over-order of high-speed freight locos! The coaching stock was built to give the locos something to do and to fill a gap. If the locos hadn't been there, those services would have been run by units.

 

[gordonthemoron]

Both ICE-1 and ICE-2 sets are loco hauled, although DB is not planning to build anymore of them

 

[Phoenix]

There's four - FSR use 90s on the Sleeper.

good point sorry everyone bit of a brain fart there
But so far some very good points but the fact we use diesel locomotives under the wires is still a concept that I cannot grasp.
Fair enough merry go round services would be a nightmare to use electric traction on but still both DRS and FL are using class 66's on the WCML for workings such as Daventry-Coatbridge or Daventry Tilbury which Both can support electric traction.
Where FL is concerned I heavily support the fact that they have put their class 86's to great use and the news that the locomotives have been given their final five years with the company is excellent but if there is only five years left why have they not set about sourcing replacements as a pair of 86's on a freight is not easily substituted.

 

[mumrar]

Both ICE-1 and ICE-2 sets are loco hauled, although DB is not planning to build anymore of them

Having looked at the ICE-1 and ICE-2 in what possible way are they loco hauled and not units. I haven't seen any evidence of the powercars moving anything else other than ICE-1 or ICE-2 stock in between in normal service or seen the trailer part of the units pulled by anything else in normal service. The definition of a unit is that the parts stay in semi-fixed formation and the constituent parts are always used together, not where or how many vehicles are powered within the set. This is just like the HST unit debate that rears its head ocassionally. They were built as sets, had set numbers allocated, and are therefore units

 

[Pumbaa]

Having looked at the ICE-1 and ICE-2 in what possible way are they loco hauled and not units. I haven't seen any evidence of the powercars moving anything else other than ICE-1 or ICE-2 stock in between in normal service or seen the trailer part of the units pulled by anything else in normal service. The definition of a unit is that the parts stay in semi-fixed formation and the constituent parts are always used together, not where or how many vehicles are powered within the set. This is just like the HST unit debate that rears its head ocassionally. They were built as sets, had set numbers allocated, and are therefore units

Got to disagree with that - you can see ICE-1 sets being pulled apart on a frequent basis to be switched around. I can't speak for the ICE-2 sets, as I've never seen them do it, but as they are only a step-up from ICE-1 and not a new design concept, I would imagine it's the same. I'll see if I can dig out the photos from Karlsruhe and Mainz somewhere.

 

[asylumxl]

I think what mumrar means is they cannot/are not coupled to other coaching stock.

 

[gordonthemoron]

bit like a 91 then

 

[generalvegitable]

may I turn your attention to this picture of a class 91 hauling mk3 coaching stock
click me to view
(image found on google, its a bit large)

 

[Phoenix]

Guys sorry to back seat moderate but can we have a separate discussion as these sorts of technicalities tend to take around 40 threads to go nowhere.

 

[mumrar]

Got to disagree with that - you can see ICE-1 sets being pulled apart on a frequent basis to be switched around.

being pulled apart on a frequent basis to be switched around with what? Log carrying wagons, motorail vehicles, sleeper coaches? My point is, under normal circumstances in service they are a coupled set and operate with one type of trailer. If you can find a photo of a single ICE-1 power car hauling some coaching stock on it's own, in normal circumstances, then I'll consider it being a loco. The fact is that countless enthusiast sites of either photos or data consider them to be units, as their design purpose was to operate as a unit in every day use. Why people think a train can only be a unit when the engines and/or traction equipment are underneath passengers is beyond me.

 

[2030720310]

What do HSTs count as, units or single powercars?

 

[mumrar]

What do HSTs count as, units or single powercars?

Well, the Class 43 is allocated to the powercar. But the T part of HST stands for train, and the train comprises two power cars and 7 or 8 carriages, which is run as a unit

 

[2030720310]

so a bit of both?

 

[90019]

What do HSTs count as, units or single powercars?

Units, because of the baggage area in the power car.

And if this doesn't count as passenger space, why is an MLV classed as a unit and not a locomotive?
It's only got luggage space, no passenger seating, and is classed as a 419, making it a Southern Region DC EMU.

And once again, the 91 was hauling Mk3a/Mk3b coaches, which are different to HST mk3s, and the HST pwercar on the other end had to be modified for the consist.

 

[gordonthemoron]

The new Railjet locos look very good:

www.seat61.com/railjet.htm

 

[HSTfan!!!]

the backs of those seats look familiar, I agree though, they sure do look good!

 

[Pumbaa]

being pulled apart on a frequent basis to be switched around with what? Log carrying wagons, motorail vehicles, sleeper coaches? My point is, under normal circumstances in service they are a coupled set and operate with one type of trailer. If you can find a photo of a single ICE-1 power car hauling some coaching stock on it's own, in normal circumstances, then I'll consider it being a loco. The fact is that countless enthusiast sites of either photos or data consider them to be units, as their design purpose was to operate as a unit in every day use. Why people think a train can only be a unit when the engines and/or traction equipment are underneath passengers is beyond me.

But on that basis would you class a cl91 as part of a unit? They only haul Mk4s and a DVT?

 

[90019]

But on that basis would you class a cl91 as part of a unit? They only haul Mk4s and a DVT?

But they are capable of hauling other stock without modification.

 

[generalvegitable]

But on that basis would you class a cl91 as part of a unit? They only haul Mk4s and a DVT?

*ahem*

sorry to post this again, but I feel that it had to be done

 

[2030720310]

the backs of those seats look familiar, I agree though, they sure do look good!

The FGW HSTs have them or ones very similar and probably others too

 

[HSTfan!!!]

The FGW HSTs have them or ones very similar and probably others too

lol that is indeed what I was referring to

 

[jopsuk]

The new Railjet locos look very good:

www.seat61.com/railjet.htm

They do, but the coaching stock was an answer to "What will we do with all these fast, powerful lcoso we seem to have over-ordered?"

I'd bet money that if the locos hadn't been sitting spare, ICE3 or similar units would have been purchased for the services.

As the HST: whether or not it is a unit is something BR ummed and ahed over. Orginally, they were numbered as DEMUs (class 253 and 254), with power cars numbered as carriages in the 43xxx range (all HST and APT vehicles were in the 4xxxx range). They were reclassified (without any vehicle renumbering) as Class 43 locos and mrk 3 carriages as the formations proved to be not as fixed as first envisaged, with especially the power cars being swapped around a lot- which meant that sets frequently carried different numbers on either end. The 253 and 254 numbers were discontinued. I'd be suprised if there's a set running around today that consists entirely of passenger and power cars from a single original "unit".

The rakes of carriages tend to be a bit more fixed, but even they aren't anywhere near as constant as "proper" MU formations.

Conclusion: they're not really comfortable in either category, but under the current numbering they are loco + carriages. In the end though, it doesn't really matter towards the running of the system, and people who care that passionately either way should find something more important to fret about.
Um.

 

[Pumbaa]

*ahem*

sorry to post this again, but I feel that it had to be done

I realise that, but that was during testing. Mumrar gave his opinion that

The fact is that countless enthusiast sites of either photos or data consider them to be units, as their design purpose was to operate as a unit in every day use. Why people think a train can only be a unit when the engines and/or traction equipment are underneath passengers is beyond me.

And as in everyday use 91s only work with Mk4s and a DVT, I was questioning whether or not he would therefore class it as a unit or a loco. I was fully aware of 91s being tested with HST power cars and Mk3s prior to their introduction.

 

[TGVDUDE]

may I turn your attention to this picture of a class 91 hauling mk3 coaching stock
click me to view
(image found on google, its a bit large)

This was during the testing of the 91's, since most of the MK4 coaches and DVT's wern't ready, the 91's were hauled MK3's and used HST Power Cars as DVT's

 

[90019]

And as in everyday use 91s only work with Mk4s and a DVT, I was questioning whether or not he would therefore class it as a unit or a loco. I was fully aware of 91s being tested with HST power cars and Mk3s prior to their introduction.

They were also originally going to be used on intermodals at night, hence the slab end
The 90s took over that instead.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This was during the testing of the 91's, since most of the MK4 coaches and DVT's wern't ready, the 91's were hauled MK3's and used HST Power Cars as DVT's

The HST powercars had to be modified because they were running with loco hauled Mk3s.

 

[ukrob]

Am I the only person who doesn't see the connection between the content of the first post and the title of the thread? I'm yet to see anything to demonstrate why 'foreign' electrics are (or are not) the best?

 

[jopsuk]

no, you're not. The main point he seems to be making in the original post is that there's actually some newish electric locos abroad, where as there aren't in the UK.

Are there many/any fraight flows entirely under the wires in the UK that rountinely use diesel traction throughout?

There then seems to be a moan that almost all passenger services use units. This is what sparked the discussion as to whether the ICE 1 and ICE 2, and the HST, are units or not.