Freightliner's environmental credentials down the pan

[black and decker boy]

1 hour ago, brushman47544 said:

 

I don't disagree with what you are saying. My point is simply that an environment perspective, it is not good news that rail freight companies are eschewing electric traction in favour of diesels and presentationally - with COP26 next month and the Government's (supposed) climate agenda - more isn't being done long term to make such traction changes an unfavourable option from a cost perspective.

From a climate change perspective, you would increase levies on HGVs before increasing levies on diesel rail traction to ensure no loss of rail traffic. 
 

However, a UK plc standpoint (ie popular opinion) says that’s wrong as it will drive inflation upwards through higher prices in shops etc. It would also affect our competitiveness in the international stakes for manufacturing / export etc. 

 

what HMG is actually doing is a) nothing in respect of commercial energy costs b) allowing hgv twin trailers “road trains” to enter service in the UK for the first time. IIRC they offer a MGW of 60T vice the current 44T

 

meanwhile railfreight  gets no support as it’s a commercial enterprise governed by market forces.

[corneliuslundie]

No-one has asked whether the change is because of loss of a contract where electric traction is possible and gain of a contract where the route is not or not wholly electrified (far too much of the network, unfortunately).

Jonathan

[black and decker boy]

3 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

No-one has asked whether the change is because of loss of a contract where electric traction is possible and gain of a contract where the route is not or not wholly electrified (far too much of the network, unfortunately).

Jonathan

One assumes (dangerous I know) that this is a short term thing as the 90s continue to cycle through works for repaints into orange

[Northmoor]

Publicly embarrassing as a setback, but in terms of actual emissions, the train is still miles ahead.  A 66 uses the order of a gallon a mile.  Each truck hauling a container is doing very approximately 10mpg.  You can fit somewhere between 50 and 100 containers on a typical intermodal train.....

[eastwestdivide]

7 hours ago, brushman47544 said:

I've read that Freightliner are to reinstate several stored Class 66s and store some Class 90s at the same time, supposedly due to electricity costs.

Is your source the WNXX news page* for 8 Oct? At the moment, I can't find any other source for this.

It's worth noting that according to that, the news is about 5 locos, and does have a few caveats (my italics)... Quoting WNXX:

Quote

...it has been indicated that their return is to allow for a reduction of the Class 90 fleet - a substantial electric bill being cited is a possible reason behind this...

Not doubting the story as such, or WNXX as a source, but it doesn't sound very strongly confirmed yet.

 

*you need to sign up (free) to read it.

[KeithMacdonald]

28 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

Publicly embarrassing as a setback, but in terms of actual emissions, the train is still miles ahead.  A 66 uses the order of a gallon a mile.  Each truck hauling a container is doing very approximately 10mpg.  You can fit somewhere between 50 and 100 containers on a typical intermodal train.....

 

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but what happens when the typical intermodal train gets to wherever it is typically going?

 

Wadworths Brewery says that a typical Shire Horse weighs one ton, and can pull twice its own weight. How many Shire Horses would we need to really do away with trucks? A an empty container weighs about four tons, and a full one weighs (say) 20 tons. Plus the weight of the road trailer, say another four tons? So anything between two and twelve. But a, err, "train" of twelve Shire Horses would certainly be a sight to behold. No steep hills please!

[Michael Hodgson]

Yeah, and the emissions would be good for my roses.

[Johann Marsbar]

17 minutes ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but what happens when the typical intermodal train gets to wherever it is typically going?

 

Wadworths Brewery says that a typical Shire Horse weighs one ton, and can pull twice its own weight. How many Shire Horses would we need to really do away with trucks? A an empty container weighs about four tons, and a full one weighs (say) 20 tons. Plus the weight of the road trailer, say another four tons? So anything between two and twelve. But a, err, "train" of twelve Shire Horses would certainly be a sight to behold. No steep hills please!

 

This alleged "beer" producer seems to use 8 to pull their demonstration wagon.....

 

 

[Michael Hodgson]

30 minutes ago, Johann Marsbar said:

 

This alleged "beer" producer seems to use 8 to pull their demonstration wagon.....

 

 

It's not exactly Wells Fargo - does that load really warrant two blokes riding shotgun as well as a driver?

[ruggedpeak]

I read the rumours that freight operators were moving back to diesel traction some months ago due to the NR electricity costs, I forget where but one of the rail mags,  I doubt FL are the only ones as it makes business sense if you have a load of diesel locos sitting around and the cost of electric juice is rising fast. Given that the climate extremists are trying to run absolutely everything on electricity only, the demand and hence price of electricity is likely to go only one way for some time. Which will produce a shift back to diesel etc.

[kevinlms]

16 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Freightliner is a private company and primarily answerable to its SHAREHOLDERS - not environmentalists, pressure groups or Governments.

 

If it starts providing lower profits / lower dividends then those shareholders will DEMAND action to cut costs. Yes it would be nice to think that shareholders would be a bit more altruistic - but the bottom line (as any city share trader / broker / etc knows) is MONEY.

 

 

Sorry, but despite your bold comments, things are changing in boardrooms around the world. Many individual shareholders and ethical funds (which includes many superannuation funds - which generally are cashed up!) are buying shares in fossil fuel and heavy polluting industries and insisting that boards consider the environmental effects of their business. Anyone is entitled to buy sufficient shares to achieve voting rights and that is what is happening.

 

The Australian government wants Adani to go ahead on a huge coal mine in Australia. However a major problem is that a very large number of the world's major banks (including those in Australia) are refusing to provide loans to them. This has come about because of shareholders insisting that doing so is a bad idea.

This means that to borrow money would mean dealing with secondary lenders at higher interest rates - due to risk.

 

The other option is for the mug Australian taxpayer, to support one of the wealthiest men in the world!

 

It isn't only directly for the mining company, even subcontractors are finding that they cannot get insurance - once it is known the work is for Adani, which puts them in breach of their contract.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-14/adani-mine-construction-contractor-says-lack-of-insurance-risky/100138016

 

So be careful with the idea that businesses are committed to the idea of making as much money as possible and at the least cost, they have to abide by the shareholder wishes too!

[DY444]

The DfT don't care.  They've made it crystal clear to me that they do not see it as appropriate for the Government to interfere in any way in decisions regarding the type of traction employed by freight operators, and, that those decisions are purely commercial for the operators and they should use whatever traction they see fit.  This from the self-same department that is taking a somewhat different stance (irrespective of cost) in respect of private cars. 

 

I am convinced that at some point a mixture of the overwhelming of the available infrastructure for EVs and the media finally waking up to the DfT's hypocrisy is going to come back and bite them on the backside.

[APOLLO]

One thing I have noticed watching recently filmed Youtube "Drivers eyes views" videos is the seemingly lack of / loss of rail freight infrastructure (mainly sidings etc) seemingly everywhere. Some yards with track still there but overgrown with rampant vegetation, large trees etc. I feel any rail freight revolution / reintroduction has a mountain to climb.

 

Brit15

[kevinlms]

1 hour ago, DY444 said:

The DfT don't care.  They've made it crystal clear to me that they do not see it as appropriate for the Government to interfere in any way in decisions regarding the type of traction employed by freight operators, and, that those decisions are purely commercial for the operators and they should use whatever traction they see fit.  This from the self-same department that is taking a somewhat different stance (irrespective of cost) in respect of private cars. 

 

I am convinced that at some point a mixture of the overwhelming of the available infrastructure for EVs and the media finally waking up to the DfT's hypocrisy is going to come back and bite them on the backside.

But that is nothing new, I remember reading of HST power cars and DMU's etc, being taken to workshops for repair BY ROAD, because it was cheaper.

Fact was that it made the railways look stupid, brought about a logical change IIRC. Nothing to do with governments telling private industry how to run their business.

[phil-b259]

4 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Sorry, but despite your bold comments, things are changing in boardrooms around the world. Many individual shareholders and ethical funds (which includes many superannuation funds - which generally are cashed up!) are buying shares in fossil fuel and heavy polluting industries and insisting that boards consider the environmental effects of their business. Anyone is entitled to buy sufficient shares to achieve voting rights and that is what is happening.

 

The Australian government wants Adani to go ahead on a huge coal mine in Australia. However a major problem is that a very large number of the world's major banks (including those in Australia) are refusing to provide loans to them. This has come about because of shareholders insisting that doing so is a bad idea.

This means that to borrow money would mean dealing with secondary lenders at higher interest rates - due to risk.

 

The other option is for the mug Australian taxpayer, to support one of the wealthiest men in the world!

 

It isn't only directly for the mining company, even subcontractors are finding that they cannot get insurance - once it is known the work is for Adani, which puts them in breach of their contract.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-14/adani-mine-construction-contractor-says-lack-of-insurance-risky/100138016

 

So be careful with the idea that businesses are committed to the idea of making as much money as possible and at the least cost, they have to abide by the shareholder wishes too!

 

Remind me who owns Freightliner?

 

Why that will be Genesee & Wyoming Incorporated of the USA!

 

A country where a massive section of the public and most of the Republican party don't believe man made climate change is happening and that nothing must get in the way of making money.

 

Moreover the point about shareholders is if the company is not performing well then it becomes a prime target for venture capitalists and hedge funds to mount hostile takeovers by promising shareholders much grater returns! A pension company might say they want to be ethical, blah, blah, blah - but they have a legal obligation to maximise financial returns so will be reluctant to actually DO a huge amount (i.e. de-invest) - particularly as they can use the face saving technique of saying at least they are investing in rail transport rather than the much more polluting airline or road transport sectors.

 

So if Freightliner turns round and says "sorry we will make much lower profits this year because we will be sticking with expensive electric traction" there are plenty of sharks lurking in the depths of the financial markets ready to pounce!

Edited October 12, 2021 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, kevinlms said:

But that is nothing new, I remember reading of HST power cars and DMU's etc, being taken to workshops for repair BY ROAD, because it was cheaper.

Fact was that it made the railways look stupid, brought about a logical change IIRC. Nothing to do with governments telling private industry how to run their business.

 

Still happens!

 

The main reason for doing this is practical - if a vehicle is damaged and has to be transported slowly or unbaked then that is a massive pain in the arse to organise on what is a very congested railway. As such Network Rail will discourage this by charging high costs and making things difficult.

 

There is also the fact that if the defective vehicle will usually need to be towed to the works by someone else as passenger TOCs do not have spare traction or drivers with the route knowledge to do the job in house. This adds further costs.

 

If the vehicles have been sat around and are no longer registered for use on the national network the recertification is going to be needed - which might be tricky to get if the vehicle is damaged / defective.

 

Its therefore far easier and cheaper therefore to put the affected vehicles onto low-loaders and send them where you want by road.

[woodenhead]

1 hour ago, APOLLO said:

One thing I have noticed watching recently filmed Youtube "Drivers eyes views" videos is the seemingly lack of / loss of rail freight infrastructure (mainly sidings etc) seemingly everywhere. Some yards with track still there but overgrown with rampant vegetation, large trees etc. I feel any rail freight revolution / reintroduction has a mountain to climb.

 

Brit15

And wagons!

 

The only wagons I've seen a lot of hanging around in disused sidings are coal hoppers - not much call for them and absolutely useless for boxed or palletised goods.

 

As most trains are now point to point there isn't much call for siding space apart from staging - Willesden & Crewe come to mind for that.   What would be the point of a Tinsley or Healey Mills unless there was a massive return to wagon load which is highly unlikely in the short term and only in the medium turn if there were major restrictions on HGVs within the UK.  Even if companies did turn away from long distance HGVs they are going to look at swap bodies so the last miles would be completed by road as now, all you need for this are a minimum of a loop and some container grab lifts.

[D410Monarch]

doesn't this show the green credentials of the government ?  Network Rail isn't a private company AFAIK ,so to price electric traction off the rails is just ridiculous , especially whilst they are busy telling us all to go green , this hypocrisy exists ! a sign of things to come with electric cars I fear once they become even more popular

[Michael Hodgson]

4 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Sorry, but despite your bold comments, things are changing in boardrooms around the world. Many individual shareholders and ethical funds (which includes many superannuation funds - which generally are cashed up!) are buying shares in fossil fuel and heavy polluting industries and insisting that boards consider the environmental effects of their business. Anyone is entitled to buy sufficient shares to achieve voting rights and that is what is happening.

 

 

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean all companies have the same degree of enlightenment.  If you're not happy about their decision, you and Greta can buy a few shares and go to the AGM and tell them. And all companies boast about the good works they are doing and gloss over anything that's politically incorrect.  In practice the small investor can only make a noise or wave banners at AGMs, it is the institutional investors who have the real influence. They have a duty to their investors to optimise return, and if one business practice is significantly more expensive than another they will expect managements to  choose the lower cost option.

 

You are quite right that there is a proportion of the population and organisations (like the Church and some collective investment schemes) who will only buy "ethical" investments - avoiding tobacco booze, gambling, goods made in sweatshops etc.  Many companies are "more ethical" in their approach, which of course also means some are less so.  However, increased demand for ethical shares drives up their share price at the expense their less ethical competitors.  Other things being equal, this does mean that you should be able to get a better return on investment in the latter, so some of those who seek to maximise return therefore choose the contrary approach.

[phil-b259]

3 hours ago, DY444 said:

 

I am convinced that at some point a mixture of the overwhelming of the available infrastructure for EVs and the media finally waking up to the DfT's hypocrisy is going to come back and bite them on the backside.

 

But the current mob / circus won't be in charge when that happens so it doesn't matter!

 

"Somebody else's problem*" in action....

 

 

* https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Somebody_Else's_Problem_Field

[Flying Pig]

11 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

But the current mob / circus won't be in charge when that happens so it doesn't matter!

 

"Somebody else's problem*" in action....

 

 

* https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Somebody_Else's_Problem_Field

 

That would be the marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation apparently.

 

Share and enjoy!

[phil-b259]

5 minutes ago, D410Monarch said:

doesn't this show the green credentials of the government ?  Network Rail isn't a private company AFAIK ,so to price electric traction off the rails is just ridiculous , especially whilst they are busy telling us all to go green , this hypocrisy exists ! a sign of things to come with electric cars I fear once they become even more popular

 

Exactly Network Rail is a state owned company which means its the state (or to be precise, HM TREASURY) has to buy in electricity, maintain the electricity supply infrastructure, and in theory expand said electrical infrastructure!

 

i.e SPEND MONEY

 

Given we have a party in power whose ideology is "small Government is a must, having low taxes is the ultimate symbol of success,  harnessing the power of the free market is the only way to cure everything, Outsourcing, Competition and relying on consultants can compensate for a lack of specialist knowledge" are you really surprised?

 

By contrast, the owners of electric cars have to pay for the electricity they use themselves, pay to have charge points fitted and are paying out extra on their bills for Government mandate crap like Smart meters! All very attractive to HM Treasury as none of it appears on the Governments books....

[phil-b259]

1 minute ago, Flying Pig said:

 

That would be the marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation apparently.

 

Share and enjoy!

 

Even they could do a better job than the current lot of clowns.

[KeithMacdonald]

5 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Even they could do a better job than the current lot of clowns.

 

If only there was a better lot of clowns! But we won't find a better lot of clowns, because the clowns are just the "front-act", implementing policies decided elsewhere behind the scenes.  Changing the clowns doesn't change the policies.

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

If only there was a better lot of clowns! But we won't find a better lot of clowns, because the clowns are just the "front-act", implementing policies decided elsewhere behind the scenes.  Changing the clowns doesn't change the policies.

No but you might get a better show - or a worse one.  PMQs is nowhere near as entertaining since they got rid  of Bercow.