Freightliner to take over Mendip aggregates traffic

[birdseyecircus]

https://railwaysillustrated.keypublishing.com/2018/12/20/freightliner-to-take-over-mendip-aggregates-traffic/

 

 

Paul

[009 micro modeller]

I thought Mendip Rail operated their own trains? Elsewhere it says that DB previously had the contract.

[stock_2007]

Maybe Freightliner can start using their class 70's?

[Ron Ron Ron]

.......The deal also means Freightliner will purchase eight loco from Mendip Rail, which is expected to happen before the end of this year.

 

4x Class 59/0 plus 4x Class 59/1 being purchased and moving to Freightliner.

 

 

.

Edited December 20, 2018 by Ron Ron Ron

[ba14eagle]

I thought Mendip Rail operated their own trains? Elsewhere it says that DB previously had the contract.

DBC operate the trains.

It will be interesting to see what traction works these trains - the Mendip Rail 59's are over / about 30 years old - are they still reliable enough? We wait to see. I would like to see class 70's on this traffic, but am not holding my breath. Linked to this point, is whether Freightliner continue to operate "jumbo" trains or whether the traffic is moved on more direct "quarry to terminal" trains.

Hopefully, FL might use some of their wagon fleet on these trains too, which could see the end of use of 45mph rolling stock, from the MR fleet.

Edited December 20, 2018 by ba14eagle

[Steadfast]

There were a lot of very glum faces when the news broke on Monday and a very frosty atmosphere. I don't know if things have developed since, but a lot of uncertainty for staff at the moment. Whilst Westbury has a large percentage of Mendip work, don't forget it also will affect London, Kent and Eastleigh too. Massive loss.

At present, Mendip own the 59/0 and 59/1s, VTG own the wagon fleet and lease them to MRL. DB provide 6 59/2s and a number of 66s each day, drivers, groundstaff, managers, as well as a lot of planning and control resources in Doncaster. There's a load of HTAs on hire from DB, which make some of trains nigh on 120 SLU for length. Presume something from FL or VTG will have to be brought in to cover that shortfall. With 100 O&K hoppers and similar number of boxes, I reckon it's take a big order for new wagons to replace all the class 7 stuff.

 

Jo

Edited December 20, 2018 by Steadfast

[Rugd1022]

I noticed a memo about this in our Booking On Point this morning, it says that some DB staff will be transferring over to FLR.

[Fat Controller]

Will they still be able to use Acton Yard to split the Jumbo trains, if it's still part of the DBC empire?

[Steadfast]

A lot of traffic splits, joins and stables at Westbury too. Anything for the Southern runs round in the yard. Could keep the panel busy if all run rounds need the down reception! It can be chaotic now if two jumbos are in the area and both need the reception

 

Jo

[TravisM]

According to WNXX.com DBC we’re considering refurbishing further Class 60’s to replace the aging Class 59’s but that plan has gone out the wall. It was also stated that Freightliner we’re looking to reactivate further Class 70’s.

[newbryford]

DBC operate the trains.

It will be interesting to see what traction works these trains - the Mendip Rail 59's are over / about 30 years old - are they still reliable enough? 

 

They were supposedly designed for a 50 year lifespan.

Maybe an engine/traction upgrade as per a lot of US locos is on the cards?

[phil-b259]

DBC operate the trains.

It will be interesting to see what traction works these trains - the Mendip Rail 59's are over / about 30 years old - are they still reliable enough? We wait to see. I would like to see class 70's on this traffic, but am not holding my breath. Linked to this point, is whether Freightliner continue to operate "jumbo" trains or whether the traffic is moved on more direct "quarry to terminal" trains.

Hopefully, FL might use some of their wagon fleet on these trains too, which could see the end of use of 45mph rolling stock, from the MR fleet.

 

I thought one of the big advantages of running 'Jumbo' trains as far Acton was it took up less train paths.

 

Freightliner might want to run shorter trains direct to the terminals in the SE but I fail to see how they can possibly be accommodated on the GWML, particularly post Crossrail!

 

And folk should note that in many cases any alternative routings they come up with present their their own problems..... which is why its always been easier to go via London

[SED Freightman]

Will they still be able to use Acton Yard to split the Jumbo trains, if it's still part of the DBC empire?

If the Acton Yard Receptions are still within a DBC lease area, then FLHH can seek a Facility Access Agreement to allow continued use for a suitable fee, provided of course that DBC do not suddenly find additional services of their own (or other operators who get in first) to occupy the spare capacity (eg. HS2 construction / spoil traffic).

[Yellowperil]

Certainly the stuff I’ve been fairly recently involved with gave me no cause for concern re:Class 59 reliability, but there’s no nostalgia involved, just making sure the numbers stack up. The 59/1s is of similar vintage and the 59/2s are newer than the Class 60!

Edited December 20, 2018 by Yellowperil

[Glorious NSE]

There's a load of HTAs on hire from DB, which make some of trains nigh on 120 SLU for length. Presume something from FL or VTG will have to be brought in to cover that shortfall. With 100 O&K hoppers and similar number of boxes, I reckon it's take a big order for new wagons to replace all the class 7 stuff.

 

The Freightliner press release includes a shot of a brand new MWA box in the new G&W style scheme, so it seems there are at least some new wagons coming in imminently. 

https://www.freightliner.co.uk/news/freightliner-contract-mendip-rail/

 

Would be amazed if there aren't some other ex-coal HHA/HXA/HYA/IIA available from a lessor to replace the HTAs at least in the short term.

 

[The Stationmaster]

DBC operate the trains.

It will be interesting to see what traction works these trains - the Mendip Rail 59's are over / about 30 years old - are they still reliable enough? We wait to see. I would like to see class 70's on this traffic, but am not holding my breath. Linked to this point, is whether Freightliner continue to operate "jumbo" trains or whether the traffic is moved on more direct "quarry to terminal" trains.

Hopefully, FL might use some of their wagon fleet on these trains too, which could see the end of use of 45mph rolling stock, from the MR fleet.

 

The 'jumbo' trains save an enormous amount of money by reducing traction needs between Westbury and Acton and maximising use of the Class 59s. (I do wonder if a 60 could actually manage the same performance - after all FY rejected them and went for 59s in the first place in order to be able to run bigger trains.

 

If the trains have to be split it will mean extra paths, probably not too bad coming up in the small hours but a potential problem going back in the afternoon especially once Crossrail gets underway with its umpteen trains per hour service toWest Drayton and Maindenhead.  If the current pattern of wagon working can't be maintained then I doubt some of the traffic would survive on rail  or even if part of it would survive at all as the whole FY business philosophy was developed around the lower rates per ton rail haul allowed giving them the opportunity to expand their market in the south east.  So it's difficult to see the big trains going and of course, as already mentioned, the 59s still seem to have plenty of life left in them.  

 

And obviously for FL to have grabbed the business they must have been offering Mendip Rail/the quarries a more competitive price and overall deal than DBC.

[newbryford]

The 'jumbo' trains save an enormous amount of money by reducing traction needs between Westbury and Acton and maximising use of the Class 59s. (I do wonder if a 60 could actually manage the same performance - after all FY rejected them and went for 59s in the first place in order to be able to run bigger trains.

 

 

 

 

FY didn't have the option of rejecting a 60 - the 59s arrived in 1986 and the tender for the 60s was issued in 1987.

FY were comparing the offerings of the US against a 56. No contest there!

 

Cue 59 v 60 debate. Roger Ford reckoned the 60 was better (but only just) than the 59. It's certainly better on fuel - that was one of the primary reasons for going for the Mirrlees power - "total life cost" including x years of fuel was a huge factor for the 60 project going to Brush/Mirrlees.

 

 

 

Cheers,

Mick

Edited December 21, 2018 by newbryford

[black and decker boy]

The Freightliner press release includes a shot of a brand new MWA box in the new G&W style scheme, so it seems there are at least some new wagons coming in imminently. 

https://www.freightliner.co.uk/news/freightliner-contract-mendip-rail/

 

Would be amazed if there aren't some other ex-coal HHA/HXA/HYA/IIA available from a lessor to replace the HTAs at least in the short term.

 

FL are currently scrapping more HHA/HXA type coal hoppers to recover bogies and brake gear for a new order of MMA type aggregates boxes.

[newbryford]

FL are currently scrapping more HHA/HXA type coal hoppers to recover bogies and brake gear for a new order of MMA type aggregates boxes.

 

GB have been using ex-EWS/DB HTAs from Peak Forest since they took over traffic from DB. Is the same likely to occur with the HTAs in the Mendips?

[royaloak]

GB have been using ex-EWS/DB HTAs from Peak Forest since they took over traffic from DB. Is the same likely to occur with the HTAs in the Mendips?

No because the HTA etc are longer than the current stone wagons for the same weight of stone carried so the same length train would be carrying a lot less stone.

 

They cant simply run longer trains (carrying the same weight of stone) because the current ones are at maximum length for the loops available.

Edited December 21, 2018 by royaloak

[newbryford]

No because the HTA etc are longer than the current stone wagons for the same weight of stone carried so the same length train would be carrying a lot less stone.

 

They cant simply run longer trains (carrying the same weight of stone) because the current ones are at maximum length for the loops available.

 

HTAs are already used on Mendip traffic - with the consequent loss of capacity regarding train length v weight with long hoppers - the point I was trying to make is that FL take over use of these as GB have done with the Peak Forest flows.

 

However, FL don't have buckeye fitted locos - so maybe some HTAs could be buffer fitted (as was done for 60s on Liverpool Bulk coal) or they acquire some buckeye fitted 66s from DB.

(As GBRf did when they gained some of the PF traffic - they are often found on trains of ex-DB HTAs)

 

Regarding coal v stone weights - DB seem to have been quite slow in converting HTA to shorty HRAs as GB did with their HYA and ex-Fastline HYA fleet - regulars on the Arcow and Grassington quarry flows.

Edited December 21, 2018 by newbryford

[black and decker boy]

GB have been using ex-EWS/DB HTAs from Peak Forest since they took over traffic from DB. Is the same likely to occur with the HTAs in the Mendips?

I’m sure FL have a plan but with 11months the before handover, there’s plenty of time to buy some new aggregates hoppers if desired.

 

GB bought the HTAs they are using out of PF. Presumably they will be shortened at some stage (though conjecture that some HTAs cannot be shortened though I don’t know the technical reason why).

[Yellowperil]

Some HTAs are only buckeye fitted at one end, the other being the bog standard screw coupling, and there have been feasibility studies into converting the rest, cost might be an issue though.

 

These wagons are notorious for structural cracking (body bolster top webs to name one) with several mods/repairs to improve their strength, might be one obstacle to shortening in a similar manner to the HYA.

Edited December 21, 2018 by Yellowperil

[Yellowperil]

There have also been mooted projects to fit swing heads to the Class 59/0 and /1, but a lack of locomotive drawings and cost is a potential issue, they aren’t quite the same as the 66 underneath.

Edited December 21, 2018 by Yellowperil

[The Stationmaster]

FY didn't have the option of rejecting a 60 - the 59s arrived in 1986 and the tender for the 60s was issued in 1987.

FY were comparing the offerings of the US against a 56. No contest there!

 

Cue 59 v 60 debate. Roger Ford reckoned the 60 was better (but only just) than the 59. It's certainly better on fuel - that was one of the primary reasons for going for the Mirrlees power - "total life cost" including x years of fuel was a huge factor for the 60 project going to Brush/Mirrlees.

 

 

 

Cheers,

Mick

 

FY were offered detailed written proposals for both types and selected the GM proposal instead of the Brush/BR proposal;  I don't think the spec for the Class 60 changed very much after Yeoman had been offered details of it.  Their decision was also influenced by reliability and after sales support where they were already getting good service from GM and which they continued to get after getting the 59s.

 

I suspect the 59s are probably better at low speed adhesion with really heavy trains and I wonder if any Class 60s have yet worked anything as heavy as the Merehead 'jumbo' train (5,000 tons trailing load when they first started running)?   Fuel consumption would be interesting to compare as up to the end of BR I don't think any fur el consumption calculations had been produced for a Class 60 hauling 5,000 tons from Westbury to Acton and all Class 60 fuel mileage in BR days was individually calculated for each diagram they would be allocated to as fuel consumption was, not surprisingly, affected by load and gradients.  The Derby computer calculations of Class 60 consumption were remarkably accurate and when a Class 60 had not been refuelled after working a tank train from Lindsey to the WR the loco ran out of fuel on the return empty working within 7 miles of the point at which it was calculated it would run out of fuel (the Driver who couldn't be bothered to take the booked light engine working for fuel probably wished that he had!).

 

Coupling strength has long been an important factor on the heavier Mendips stone trains with various restrictions on how different wagon types are to be marshalled although no doubt all the shackles in use are 50 ton or stronger.   And of course when we did the 12,0000 tonne trial train the biggest problem - even with a mid-train helper  - was coupling strength although the part which failed was actually a coupling hook on one of the locos.

Edited December 21, 2018 by The Stationmaster