Freightliner's environmental credentials down the pan

[TravisM]

1 hour ago, admiles said:

 

This has always happened with ro/ro trailer traffic. Certainly in the 30+ years (eek!) I've been in the industry. Simply known as "accompanied" and "unaccompanied" trailers. 

I have a friend who works for a haulage company and before brexit, they sent their trailers “accompanied” but now, it’s more convenient for them to just drop the trailer and and get a contractor to forward onwards.  He said it cuts down on paperwork and their drivers don’t have to bother with covid testing etc.

[ruggedpeak]

Ultimately trains are better than trucks environmentally so whether diesel or electric more use of trains is a good thing for lots of reasons.

 

In terms of Brexit, the tough get going when the going get tough. Sorts the winners from the whingers. Trains are good and solve challenges!

 

[phil-b259]

On 22/10/2021 at 00:52, Michael Hodgson said:

Isn't that why the French have tolls on the Autoroutes?

 

Not specifically - however that is naturally a side effect of tolled motorways.

 

The biggest advantages with tolled motorways are:-

 

(1) they don't cost the Government anything to build in the long term (construction costs being paid back over several decades by users)  and thus can usually escape from being axed due to spending cuts.

 

(2) They don't cost the Government anything to maintain so are rarely full of potholes and the verges / central reserve are not an unkempt set of brambles / scrub liberally sprinkled with litter and debris because landscaping / litter picking is not considered worth spending taxpayers money on.

 

(3) More service areas can be provided as simple ones with minimal facilities can be supported by toll revenue rather than each site having to make a large profit and be 'commercially viable'

 

(4) The tolls discourage short 'junction hoppers' from clogging up long distance routes

 

(5) They increase the cost of motoring for long distance journeys (usually ones where there is a rail alternative) while at the same time not penalising rural drivers (the problem with vehicle ownership or fuel based taxes like we use in the UK to pay for our motorways) who may live many miles from the nearest railhead let alone motorway.

Edited July 19, 2023 by phil-b259

[ruggedpeak]

This is headline news on front cover of Rail magazine 20/10/21. All leccy trains withdrawn.

 

https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/2021/10/13/freightliner-to-withdraw-entire-electric-fleet

[woodenhead]

I wonder how Lumo are feeling now about an all electric fleet, though what else should have bought for a service completely under the wires.  Hopefully, they purchased a fixed price before the increase so they can establish themselves before they are forced to increase prices.

[corneliuslundie]

And the usual government "non-answer" to the question. I assume they have specially trained team writing these meaningless answers, or is there now a phone app which generates them automatically?

Jonathan

[ruggedpeak]

1 hour ago, woodenhead said:

I wonder how Lumo are feeling now about an all electric fleet, though what else should have bought for a service completely under the wires.  Hopefully, they purchased a fixed price before the increase so they can establish themselves before they are forced to increase prices.

The risk of electricity prices (indeed any energy price) going through the roof, especially when you have a monopoly supplier of both energy and track space should not be news to them, pretty obvious risk given the parlous state of the UK's energy policy and supplies, and the increasing over-reliance on electricity due to climate change. 

[APOLLO]

This was news to me - thankfully railways are duty exempt. A lot of wider implications for us all though.

 

https://www.nationwidefuels.co.uk/news/red-diesel-ban/

 

Brit15

[corneliuslundie]

It has only just struck me that since Network Rail is also publicly owned the government could if it wished have told it to absorb the extra electricity costs, as this is in the long run no different to the "franchises" passing the extra costs to the government. It is the same public "pot" which would be picking up the tab.

Jonathan

Edited October 31, 2021 by corneliuslundie
Correct company name

[Ron Ron Ron]

1 hour ago, corneliuslundie said:

It has only just struck me that since Railtrack is also publicly owned…..

Railtrack?

They disappeared nearly 20 years ago  ( …..just over 19 years ago to be precise).

 

 

.

Edited October 31, 2021 by Ron Ron Ron

[corneliuslundie]

Red face dept. Company name now corrected.#.

Jonathan

[black and decker boy]

1 hour ago, corneliuslundie said:

It has only just struck me that since Network Rail is also publicly owned the government could if it wished have told it to absorb the extra electricity costs, as this is in the long run no different to the "franchises" passing the extra costs to the government. It is the same public "pot" which would be picking up the tab.

Jonathan

Except in the freight world, that would be a subsidy and probably face legal challenge.

 

AIUI, all passenger TOCs are on fixed price deals (think I’ve seen that it’s a 5year fix).

 

presumably the FOCs generally can’t lock down for 5 years if the traffic they are hauling is on 1 or 2 year contracts (The Daventry - Scotland flows seem to change operator frequently) and intermodal flows are very much dependant on the health of the world economy.

 

As it happens though, all FOCs are still using AC traction even if it’s less than last month and mainly north of Crewe.

[Zomboid]

I can't see how they'd keep up with diesel traction been Crewe and Scotland via the WCML without double heading. And I can't imagine electricity is twice the price of diesel. Plus if they're running more diesel elsewhere will they have enough of them?

[mdvle]

On 29/10/2021 at 17:29, phil-b259 said:

The biggest advantages with tolled motorways are:-

 

(2) They don't cost the Government anything to maintain so are rarely full of potholes and the verges / central reserve are not an unkept set of brambles / scrub liberally sprinkled with litter and debris because landscaping / litter picking is not considered worth spending taxpayers money on.

 

Well, at least until the people running realize that cutting landscaping increases profit, and thus their year end bonus...

 

On 29/10/2021 at 17:29, phil-b259 said:

(3) More service areas can be provided as simple ones with minimal facilities can be supported by toll revenue rather than each site having to make a large profit and be 'commercially viable'

 

Really?  Doesn't sound very private sector to me.  Why cut into shareholder profits to provide money losing facilities when you can build fewer that generate profits?

 

Of course my replies to 2 and 3 both assume they are built and run by the private sector - but the answer is generally the same even if it is the government that does it except the "profits" are funnelled into other politically expedient things - like buying votes at the next election with infrastructure promises.

 

On 29/10/2021 at 17:29, phil-b259 said:

(3) The tolls discourage short 'junction hoppers' from clogging up long distance routes

 

They also discourage traffic, particularly heavy goods stuff, from using the toll roads and so instead they clog up and destroy the local roads - as I see daily.

 

[corneliuslundie]

I don't see that emergency action to keep trains electric is very different from bailing out the steel industry or the CO2 manufacturers. And one of the very few advantages of Brexit is that we can't be accused of breaking EU rules.

But I am sure that there are some lawyers would make some money challenging it somehow.

Jonathan

[phil-b259]

7 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

Well, at least until the people running realize that cutting landscaping increases profit, and thus their year end bonus...

 

 

Really?  Doesn't sound very private sector to me.  Why cut into shareholder profits to provide money losing facilities when you can build fewer that generate profits?

 

Of course my replies to 2 and 3 both assume they are built and run by the private sector - but the answer is generally the same even if it is the government that does it except the "profits" are funnelled into other politically expedient things - like buying votes at the next election with infrastructure promises.

 

 

They also discourage traffic, particularly heavy goods stuff, from using the toll roads and so instead they clog up and destroy the local roads - as I see daily.

 

 

If tolled motorways are so disastrous please explain why they remain the default option in several European states!

 

Could it be that unlike the British some places actually value other things than MONEY.

 

Quite obviously after 65 or so years of 'free' motorways getting the British people  to accept widespread motorway tolling isn't going to happen, but as with lots of things transport wise, had we copied the French we would be in a much better place infrastructure wise.

 

 

[phil-b259]

10 hours ago, black and decker boy said:

 

As it happens though, all FOCs are still using AC traction even if it’s less than last month and mainly north of Crewe.

 

I have pointed out several times that electric traction is the only option for FOCs if they want to have more than one train a day due to pathing constraints for slow diesel hauled trains over the northern reaches of the WCML.

 

 

 

[mdvle]

17 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

If tolled motorways are so disastrous please explain why they remain the default option in several European states!

 

It's not that they are necessarily disastrous, but rather like most things they are a mix of good and bad.

 

Politicians like them because they don't have to find money to pay for them, or to maintain them, or deal with the politics around them(*)

 

But they do cause side effects.

 

I live 1 km away from the 407ETR toll highway in Ontario Canada.  Their pricing is such that they don't get slow downs / traffic jams during rush hour - good for those who can afford the toll costs - but that high pricing means that the major regional road 500m in other other direction is packed with trucks/lorries all day as they avoid the toll prices - and thus the local taxpayers pick up the cost of the damage to the road that heavy traffic does.

 

And the 407ETR doesn't spend money on landscaping beyond what any of the normal highways do.

 

Note the very healthy financials of the 407ETR - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Highway_407#Revenue_and_Profit

 

17 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

Could it be that unlike the British some places actually value other things than MONEY.

 

Like that Spanish company raking in the money on their 43% ownership of the 407ETR?

 

They may not quite as obvious and cut throat about it as the UK or Americans, but they still very much value earning lots of money.

 

17 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

Quite obviously after 65 or so years of 'free' motorways getting the British people  to accept widespread motorway tolling isn't going to happen, but as with lots of things transport wise, had we copied the French we would be in a much better place infrastructure wise.

 

Which is why the French are now copying the UK and Germans and others and investing in their non-TGV rail networks, because their transit planning was so perfect?

 

Like I said, toll roads aren't inherently good or evil.  They certainly can have advantages, and can possibly operate in a manner better for the public if the relevant governments are careful with the rules/regulations around their operation.

 

* it's interesting to contrast public transit building in Canada in Montreal and Toronto - Toronto is decades behind in public transit building based on need thanks to political interference - new governments radically changing plans when elected resulting in nothing for the most part getting beyond the planning stages (and not helped by a Mayor who promised subways everywhere for free).  On the other hand Montreal's latest large transit project is being built by the private sector, and is actually getting built and will actually open - in part because they are immune from the changing winds of political whims...

[woodenhead]

Freightliner 86s to Bulgaria

 

[JeffP]

Aye, who needs electric locos?

 

[Pete the Elaner]

I understand DB have now stored the entire fleet of 90s & switched to diesel-only operation because the electrics are too costly to run. Is this true? I was told this by a reliable source.

If so, it is disgusting; not from the operator but from the energy regulators, who should be keeping the greener methods of energy generation cheaper than the alternatives.

[woodenhead]

15 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

I understand DB have now stored the entire fleet of 90s & switched to diesel-only operation because the electrics are too costly to run. Is this true? I was told this by a reliable source.

If so, it is disgusting; not from the operator but from the energy regulators, who should be keeping the greener methods of energy generation cheaper than the alternatives.

Took me a bit to find Freightliner using the 90s, had to watch several Stafford videos full of 66s and 70s and passenger stuff, so many trains....

 

No sign of any DB 90s in use, that is not to say they aren't in use with partners rather than with DB themselves.

[corneliuslundie]

I think the problem is that though energy prices are regulated for private consumers they are not for industry or Network Rail and the cost of electricity for traction has gone up far more than  the cost of diesel (which has started to come down again). Presumably Freightliner's parent company takes the view that this is not going to change in the UK.

And of course projects such as the Electric Spine have been dumped and EWR is not being electrified. So diesel is often the only practical power anyway.

So blame it on the short sighted thinking of our politicians (when is the next election?).

Jonathan

[St. Simon]

19 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

I understand DB have now stored the entire fleet of 90s & switched to diesel-only operation because the electrics are too costly to run. Is this true? I was told this by a reliable source.

If so, it is disgusting; not from the operator but from the energy regulators, who should be keeping the greener methods of energy generation cheaper than the alternatives.

 

Hi,

 

It doesn't necessarily mean that the electricity supply is expensive. The 90s could be expensive because it is getting harder to find spare parts as well as finding qualified drivers & maintenance staff (after all they are a 'niche' fleet when compared with the 66s, so why not go down the standard fleet route?), it maybe the 90s have a higher track access cost than the 66s (I presume potentially a lower axle loading?)

 

What is needed is a standard electric loco, much like the electric equivalent of the 66s? 

 

Simon

[black and decker boy]

From news page elsewhere, DB have reduced down to a single class 90 on the active pool but will be rotating their fleet to keep them operable.
 

it doesn’t appear to be a parts problem but a recurrence of the cost of electricity and maybe a reflection of lower demand on the long distance intermodals.

 

FL have also reduced active diagrams for their CL90 fleet.

DRS have also reduced use of the class 88 fleet.