Jump to content
 

Small DBS Electric renaissance


Recommended Posts

I see where you're coming from, however we haven't got a new monster Co-Co electric to really replace the older electric traction we've already got, and 66's when the new wires go up. It doesn't really bode well IMO when all we've got so far is DRS' willingness to purchase an electro-diesel which is pretty much 2013's answer to a class 90 under the wires, save for regenerative braking, AC traction motors, the ability to shunt into unelectrified terminals and a small smattering of extra horsepower {1}. Personally I highly doubt that Freightliner is going to try out an 88 with a view to ordering some to replace any 90's for example, the benefits would be negligible, especially as the terminals that the 90's already work to/from are electrified {2}, and an 88 won't have enough power on diesel to take it's train to Felixstowe, which is the real benefit they have over a 90 . Plus I'm sure the leasing costs for Freightliners 90's and 86's are far more favourable.{3} The only possible scenario for more 88's to be built is if Freightliner want to displace it's 86's and 90's at the same time,{4} but as long as the economics of cheap, durable, Can's and Skoda's doing what they do now continues, I can't see the investment forthcoming. The only way these older electrics are going to go is if someone builds a UK version of one of the Co-Co Siemens/Bombardier products.  

 

92's seem to be fragile as you say, but with no replacement on the horizon, they'll probably keep going. They're the only electric that can take those kinds of weights up Shap/Beattock as it stands. 

 

First up - i'll admit to some devils advocating in what i'm writing here, but what I will say is that I think we're in a very changeable time, on a railway which will evolve in ways that we don't even know yet in what is (in railway terms) a very short timescale - in that scenario the only certainty is that nobody knows for sure what will or will not happen in the greater scheme of things - and I believe that goes for folk in the business as well!

 

{1} - That sounds rather like "Apart from........what have the Romans ever done for us?" ;)

 

{2} - Is replacing existing electrics actually the point though - or would it be to increase the amount of electric haulage? FL have enough electric power to do a certain amount of work, but don't have a big fleet of spares sat around (and 66s vice electrics is not rare even with the current diagrams) - but with more work coming in from London Gateway already, and the potential for several additional terminals to start being served by electric traction as the wires go up over the next decade then the current 86s and 90s will not be able to handle that as well as the current electrified diagrams. If FL are to serve those with electric loco's without running fewer of the existing trains with electrics then they will need more electric loco's.

 

{3} - I would agree that the lease costs for an 86 or 90 are probably less than a new loco - one question though would be whether the lease costs for two 86s is less, if not, then that's an immediate saving...

 

{4} - Why only Freightliner? 4 of the 5 biggest FOCs are using electric traction right now, the 5th (Colas) has used it, and my guess is will do so again. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

First up - i'll admit to some devils advocating in what i'm writing here, but what I will say is that I think we're in a very changeable time, on a railway which will evolve in ways that we don't even know yet in what is (in railway terms) a very short timescale - in that scenario the only certainty is that nobody knows for sure what will or will not happen in the greater scheme of things - and I believe that goes for folk in the business as well!

 

{1} - That sounds rather like "Apart from........what have the Romans ever done for us?" ;)

 

{2} - Is replacing existing electrics actually the point though - or would it be to increase the amount of electric haulage? FL have enough electric power to do a certain amount of work, but don't have a big fleet of spares sat around (and 66s vice electrics is not rare even with the current diagrams) - but with more work coming in from London Gateway already, and the potential for several additional terminals to start being served by electric traction as the wires go up over the next decade then the current 86s and 90s will not be able to handle that as well as the current electrified diagrams. If FL are to serve those with electric loco's without running fewer of the existing trains with electrics then they will need more electric loco's.

 

{3} - I would agree that the lease costs for an 86 or 90 are probably less than a new loco - one question though would be whether the lease costs for two 86s is less, if not, then that's an immediate saving...

 

{4} - Why only Freightliner? 4 of the 5 biggest FOCs are using electric traction right now, the 5th (Colas) has used it, and my guess is will do so again. 

Very good points again GloriousNSE, but if I may counteract a few for the purposes of discussion?  ;)

 

1) True, and I'm not saying that what the 88 currently offers isn't any good, I was looking at it more from an expenditure point of view. A 90 can do pretty much everything the 88 save for shunting away from the wires, hence why an 88 would be an unnecessary expenditure in a purely replacement scenario, which I was referring to in that instance.

 

2) Good point, but one thing which is being overlooked is (I think) a lot of Felixstowe freight will be going Cross-Country in the future - this will all be in the hands of 66's and 70's if this is the case, with very few Felixstowe's continuing to go via the GEML/under the wires IIRC, hence the Soham-Ely doubling project. So if the number of electric diagrams to Ipswich is slashed by a big percentage, the number of electrics saved will most likely be enough to handle Gateway traffic until the terminal gets into full swing. Admittedly that's not taking into account the possible wiring of other terminals, and any huge growth London Gateway has.  

 

3) Again I can see where you're coming from with the pair of 86's v 88 leasing cost, but the reason Freightliner still have the 86's at all is because of their haulage capability in pairs. A 90 or a 66 will cope with your average 'liner of around 1200 tonnes, all well and good, but for the heaviest freights they use their 86's - there are a couple of very heavy freights which are almost solidly 86 worked, and if not pairs of 90's work these trains to/from Crewe and the north. I'm pretty sure one of these 'liners from Coatbridge-Tilbury, actually weighs in at 2000t. An 88 may be able to lug a heavy freight with it's AC motors and extra dollop of horsepower, but I highly doubt it will be able to go ton for ton with a pair of Cans over Shap/Beattock, and even if they do manage it, it'll be down to a crawl over the Fell's, like the 66's currently do. It's probable that they may have to double up on the heaviest, and I imagine that 'liners will be getting longer in the future as well. 4M93 Felixstowe-Lawley Street is already over 30 wagons long for example, and I imagine that's the way most will go too as growth picks up. So going back to the leasing cost, in the scenario that an 88 will not pull what a pair of 86's will cost, the costs will undoubtedly be higher to run pairs of 88's instead of 86's, and if you're forking out money for fancy new electrics I doubt it'd be value for money using pairs of these new electrics on heavy services which can be handled by pairs of cheaper, older electric traction, whereas it would be value for money using them to reduce 66/70's under the wires or operating new services, if you see where I'm coming from?  

 

However, in the scenario an 88 will manage even with the heaviest freights, then yes, a substantial saving in lease costs over pairs of 86's I'd imagine. 

 

4) I was using Freightliner as a prominent example because they use electric traction the most! And are most likely to be on the hunt for new electric traction as more Intermodal work could go under the wires, however I am fairly sceptical of any big influxes of electric traction for the following reasons:

 

It seems to me that a lot of freight, especially the heavy stuff seems to originate from the East Coast, places such as Immingham and Barnetby, places which won't be getting wires, and so unless there are traction changes at convenient, wired places, will continue to be bolted to diesel traction. And then one of the busiest freight locations in the country, Water Orton has no plans for wires AFAIK. And Warrington Central, another busy freight location, but no wires planned. And as for the electric spine, Southampton-Basingstoke isn't confirmed, neither is Leamington-Oxford or Nuneaton-Coventry, so if that doesn't come about, diesel over the third rail to take freight up to the WCML via Reading and Oxford will continue.

 

And of course, FOC's freight flows evolve and it'd be stupid to predict future operations, but presuming most of the freight flows stay the same, for the purposes of conjecture may I...?

 

DBS are only just waking up and smelling the coffee with regards to electric traction and are hastily reinstating 92's - whether they're even for UK use is yet to be known. They've bolted Sheds to the front of most of their trains for the last 10 years, and as long as they're on lease I'd imagine that to be the case, unless there's a chance to export 66's to Poland/France and have more electrics doing work. But as it stands unless they reinstate all the 92's they have currently and use them on work under the wires now, they may not need any new electrics in the future - I'm not sure how much freight traffic will be able to use the wires on the GWML or the MML, not being aware of the destinations served if I'm honest. But some of their freight traffic might have destinations off the electrified network post 2019, and unless they're willing to swap traction, I can foresee 66's still being used. Plus they have a lot of heavy coal, petroleum, steel and iron ore work around Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, which will not be under at least at the start/end of their journeys. Prime candidates for 92 haulage as well, but no wires to be strung up in this part of the country. 

 

GBRF have only 6 operable electrics, and only three services to use them on, the departmentals over Shap, the freight flow to Rugby through the Chunnel and the Trafford Park-Ipswich (Felixstowe) 'liners, just enough work to sustain their fleet, with 10 92's still in store at Coquelles and Loughborough. Not sure what condition any of these are in, but as the 6 they have now were knackers before, I imagine they can reinstate them. It'd be cheaper than buying new, especially as they own them. I doubt that only a small percentage, if any of GBRf's coal, biomass and other heavy haul work will come under the wires which is a fair percentage of their portfolio - which leaves Intermodal flows like Hams Hall - Felixstowe to be covered, the Felixstowe-Doncaster/Selby workings which could go under the wires via London go cross-country, and there's no guarantee that Hams Hall will get wires, as it is currently off the electrified network by a fair amount. 

 

DRS are using 3 92's on one return freight flow (the Tesco) as it stands and are due to lose some more Daventry-Grangemouth traffic to Freightliner soon IIRC, as well as the Purfleet-Daventry sugar liner, in which case less electric work as it stands. That's not to say they won't win them back or gain work in new area's, which of course is what the 88's are mainly for. When you currently look at what they operate, very little of it can be pulled by electric traction even in the future - RHTT circuits, Northern Belle, Nuclear flasks and GA standby work, although the Kingmoor-Basford Hall NDS work is a prime candidate for electric traction presuming they hold onto it of course. 

 

And then there's Freightliner who operate a fleet of almost 50 year old 86's and 90's changing loco's at Ipswich, and probably only do it because they inherited it from BR. They have the most potential for vastly increased electric haulage, with further freight increases from Felixstowe due (despite most going Cross-Country, I'm sure there will be a few residual services via London)  the absolutely monstrous growth predicted for London Gateway, and the potential for Southampton to come under the wires providing the full extent of the electric spine goes ahead, so they will almost certainly need a big batch of electrics.  

 

It may come across that I'm someone who's in complete opposition of electric haulage and new locomotives, on the contrary, I'd love to see most freight under the wires with electrics and new types ordered left right and centre! But to me I don't think the electric spine has been properly thought out, and lets face it, most of electrification schemes are geared towards passengers. So as long as the majority of freight is partially off the wires, which it will seem to be, I fear that we won't really see much change with what we see now, apart from growth on existing electric corridors and electrics displacing diesels under the wires now.  

 

Sorry, I realise that's a hell of a long read...  :scratchhead:

Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of points here -

 

(1) DBS run a Scunthorpe - Dollands Moor steel train with a 66 between Scunthorpe and Doncaster, and a 92 between Doncaster and Dollands Moor.

 

(2) A big factor that will influence freight train power could be pathing a maximum 75mph freight in between average 110mph passenger services.

The Lincolnshire Loop Line is being upgraded to carry more freight than it currently does, and once upgraded there will become free paths on the ECML for more passenger services.

 

It is nice that all these electric loco's are being sourced, but without an increase in the maximum speed of the freight wagons then freight will be relegated to secondary lines.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

1) True, and I'm not saying that what the 88 currently offers isn't any good, I was looking at it more from an expenditure point of view. A 90 can do pretty much everything the 88 save for shunting away from the wires, hence why an 88 would be an unnecessary expenditure in a purely replacement scenario, which I was referring to in that instance.

 

And also regen braking, which linked with energy metering could mean your "fuel costs" are substantially lower on a new machine than the current (sorry) loco's are - but I agree - I don't think pure replacement is the big point here, the issue is what we'll need for a future network (which is of currently uncertain scope.)

 

In terms of replacement (which I agree isn't the main point) - there is *some* advantage to having one big fleet of "like" machines - fewer parts, better knowledge etc...

 

 

 

2) Good point, but one thing which is being overlooked is (I think) a lot of Felixstowe freight will be going Cross-Country in the future - this will all be in the hands of 66's and 70's if this is the case, with very few Felixstowe's continuing to go via the GEML/under the wires IIRC, hence the Soham-Ely doubling project. So if the number of electric diagrams to Ipswich is slashed by a big percentage, the number of electrics saved will most likely be enough to handle Gateway traffic until the terminal gets into full swing. Admittedly that's not taking into account the possible wiring of other terminals, and any huge growth London Gateway has.

 

I think that's a big assumption - I don't think it's a bad assumption from where we are - but it's a big one. Several things could affect this.

 

One is what happens to the deep sea container market as a whole (something almost completely outside the railways control) - Felixstowe has invested heavily in additional terminal capacity, IIRC it has the capability to nearly double the number of trains it dispatches (subject to the double tracking on the branch) - okay Felixstowe has an aspiration to increase rail's market share there also, but will Felixstowe keep growing in the face of competition from Gateway, or stay static, or could traffic there even fall? 

 

We don't know.

 

"Global stuff" may also have an impact, will China still dominate imports in 10 years? Will imports fall? If China still dominates, will high value shipments be moving more and more to overland routes (it's already starting to happen) which would see them more likely to be moving via the channel tunnel (or short-sea ports) and not via the giant deep sea ports at all?

 

I think that more terminals having electric capability is a bit more than a "we don't know" at this stage, it seems almost inevitable that you'll be able to add Bristol and Wentloog terminals to the electrified network, at least using a "last mile" machine - Southampton is "on the plan" and seems very likely to be added via one route or another. I personally think that Wakefield may be once we find out the final plans, and if the TPX wiring does go to Hull then Selby will as well...

 

More change? The freight operators are already making the case for Felixstowe-Nuneaton to be high on the next list of routes wired. That's not really something you can take as an indicator of not being interested in electric traction either!

 

And the numbers that Gateway is quoting as it's design figures are huge - we don't know what the outcome of that will be, but I suspect if it's even half what they say then it could swallow most of Freightliner's existing fleet!

 

Add to that Freightliner has just gained trains that can be electrically hauled from DRS as you mention below, but has no spare electrics to haul them...

 

 

 

3) Again I can see where you're coming from with the pair of 86's v 88 leasing cost, but the reason Freightliner still have the 86's at all is because of their haulage capability in pairs. A 90 or a 66 will cope with your average 'liner of around 1200 tonnes, all well and good, but for the heaviest freights they use their 86's - there are a couple of very heavy freights which are almost solidly 86 worked, and if not pairs of 90's work these trains to/from Crewe and the north. I'm pretty sure one of these 'liners from Coatbridge-Tilbury, actually weighs in at 2000t. An 88 may be able to lug a heavy freight with it's AC motors and extra dollop of horsepower, but I highly doubt it will be able to go ton for ton with a pair of Cans over Shap/Beattock, and even if they do manage it, it'll be down to a crawl over the Fell's, like the 66's currently do. It's probable that they may have to double up on the heaviest, and I imagine that 'liners will be getting longer in the future as well. 4M93 Felixstowe-Lawley Street is already over 30 wagons long for example, and I imagine that's the way most will go too as growth picks up. So going back to the leasing cost, in the scenario that an 88 will not pull what a pair of 86's will cost, the costs will undoubtedly be higher to run pairs of 88's instead of 86's, and if you're forking out money for fancy new electrics I doubt it'd be value for money using pairs of these new electrics on heavy services which can be handled by pairs of cheaper, older electric traction, whereas it would be value for money using them to reduce 66/70's under the wires or operating new services, if you see where I'm coming from?  

 

I think there's a lot of logic in that - but DRS are saying the 88 (or a 68!) will cope with their (max length) current trains over the Northern fells...again, what the reality will be is not yet known.

 

Another variable? NR may yet wade in on this argument in some places, where there may be capacity gains for the whole railway by demanding a traction change to something that does a better job of keeping out of the way of passenger services. Mandating electric traction on the WCML North of Preston is likely to be cheaper to the industry as a whole than four tracking...

 

 

 

It seems to me that a lot of freight, especially the heavy stuff seems to originate from the East Coast, places such as Immingham and Barnetby, places which won't be getting wires, and so unless there are traction changes at convenient, wired places, will continue to be bolted to diesel traction. And then one of the busiest freight locations in the country, Water Orton has no plans for wires AFAIK. And Warrington Central, another busy freight location, but no wires planned. And as for the electric spine, Southampton-Basingstoke isn't confirmed, neither is Leamington-Oxford or Nuneaton-Coventry, so if that doesn't come about, diesel over the third rail to take freight up to the WCML via Reading and Oxford will continue.

 

And of course, FOC's freight flows evolve and it'd be stupid to predict future operations, but presuming most of the freight flows stay the same, for the purposes of conjecture may I...?

 

I could also throw you lots of busy freight locations that are either already wired, or will be soon - for example Newport is currently 100% diesel, and will be wired - hopefull along with many of the yards through South Wales - so i'm not convinced the fact that some other places will not be wired (yet) "proves" that electric freight haulage will not, can not, grow.

 

If you want a fun example, EWS has a lot of tonnage between South Wales and Yorks/Lincs - the current routing for that is the logical one via Gloucester, Water Orton, etc. You're spot on that route is not currently being proposed to be wired in the first round of electrification.

 

But - it doesn't mean you can't electrically haul that freight though, as (assuming the required connections at the North end are done) they could run either via "The Electric Spine" or via London and the ECML.

 

The whole "electric spine" idea looks pretty useless initially as only a couple of freight trains would be able to use most of it - but as a link in a wired network it makes a lot more sense - assuming NR do their job of turning a theoretical political target into a real, useful bit of railway infrastructure which links to the current wired network properly.

 

 

 

But as it stands unless they reinstate all the 92's they have currently and use them on work under the wires now, they may not need any new electrics in the future - I'm not sure how much freight traffic will be able to use the wires on the GWML or the MML, not being aware of the destinations served if I'm honest. But some of their freight traffic might have destinations off the electrified network post 2019, and unless they're willing to swap traction, I can foresee 66's still being used. Plus they have a lot of heavy coal, petroleum, steel and iron ore work around Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, which will not be under at least at the start/end of their journeys. Prime candidates for 92 haulage as well, but no wires to be strung up in this part of the country.
 

 

Deep into the assumptions again...

 

Firstly, yet again, the new designs are not identical to the old designs, but newer, but have features that the old ones do not - so there may even be diagrams right now that don't make sense for electric haulage with a 92, but might with something that you can "last mile".

Leaving aside that DBS already uses 92s to Doncaster, we don't know what the electrified network in Yorkshire/Lincolnshire will actually look like yet, so it's impossible for anyone to say that conventional or last-mile electrics will not be able to be used on freight flows.

 

As for "I can foresee 66s still being used" - yes, I don't think anyone is arguing that all trains will be (or could be) electrically hauled any time soon, even in area's where there's a lot of wiring there will be places that will never be wired, and commercial reality, even in a theoretical fully wired network you'd need diesels for engineers traffic, which in the current commercial environment would need to be really useful engines on the other five days a week also. 

 

 

 

GBRF have only 6 operable electrics, and only three services to use them on, the departmentals over Shap, the freight flow to Rugby through the Chunnel and the Trafford Park-Ipswich (Felixstowe) 'liners, just enough work to sustain their fleet, with 10 92's still in store at Coquelles and Loughborough. Not sure what condition any of these are in, but as the 6 they have now were knackers before, I imagine they can reinstate them. It'd be cheaper than buying new, especially as they own them. I doubt that only a small percentage, if any of GBRf's coal, biomass and other heavy haul work will come under the wires which is a fair percentage of their portfolio - which leaves Intermodal flows like Hams Hall - Felixstowe to be covered, the Felixstowe-Doncaster/Selby workings which could go under the wires via London go cross-country, and there's no guarantee that Hams Hall will get wires, as it is currently off the electrified network by a fair amount. 

 

So, to put what you've just said in another way...

They have a very small fleet.

They have more trains already that could be run with an electric loco (with a re-route) but aren't.

 

Before you say the re-route is impossible, IIRC their Hams and Trafford Park trains have paths via both routes already...

 

 

 

DRS are using 3 92's on one return freight flow (the Tesco) as it stands and are due to lose some more Daventry-Grangemouth traffic to Freightliner soon IIRC, as well as the Purfleet-Daventry sugar liner, in which case less electric work as it stands. That's not to say they won't win them back or gain work in new area's, which of course is what the 88's are mainly for. When you currently look at what they operate, very little of it can be pulled by electric traction even in the future - RHTT circuits, Northern Belle, Nuclear flasks and GA standby work, although the Kingmoor-Basford Hall NDS work is a prime candidate for electric traction presuming they hold onto it of course. 

 

But* have just invested in a fleet of new electrics...

 

(*And yes, with the caveat that DRS's traction policy has never been.....conventional)

 

 

 

And then there's Freightliner who operate a fleet of almost 50 year old 86's and 90's changing loco's at Ipswich, and probably only do it because they inherited it from BR. They have the most potential for vastly increased electric haulage, with further freight increases from Felixstowe due (despite most going Cross-Country, I'm sure there will be a few residual services via London)  the absolutely monstrous growth predicted for London Gateway, and the potential for Southampton to come under the wires providing the full extent of the electric spine goes ahead, so they will almost certainly need a big batch of electrics.

 

Make your mind up. ;)

 

I don't think the only reason FL run their electrics is because BR did - I think if there was no advantage they would have swapped them for diesels during the first decade of privatisation, dark days when electric traction was almost a dirty word.

 

The loco's were sold and leased back, so there's no "we own it so it's free" advantage - and they incur considerable operational costs at Ipswich swapping traction, which I can't imagine they would do if there were no positives to the operation (beyond rather vague "green credentials" - which they don't overtly play on unlike some other FOCs) - they could even have moved the traction change to Crewe and shut the presence at Ipswich down totally which you might assume would have been operationally much easier and cheaper if there was no advantage in the electrics other than on the northern fells.

 

I would suspect that more HP, so better pathing on the South end of the GEML and WCML is one factor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

 

If you want a fun example, EWS has a lot of tonnage between South Wales and Yorks/Lincs - the current routing for that is the logical one via Gloucester, Water Orton, etc. You're spot on that route is not currently being proposed to be wired in the first round of electrification.

 

 

 

I am sure I read in some of the official announcements on CP5 that this route is being considered for CP6 (Derby to Bristol and some other bits maybe) along with 'various lines in Yorkshire'. Obviously the second bit has got a bit further but maybe the first bit hasn't had another announcement yet - or possibly they have decided not to do it. Of course it would helpful if I could find that document again!

 

Rob

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep I think you're right - it might be a harder sell now though, as at the time the Voyagers would have become bi-modes which would have then been potentially on-wire from Bristol North (for an SW to NE/Scotland service - and allowing for the small, unconfirmed gaps in Yorkshire) - the bi-mode voyager plan has since been dropped though - that would mean it's less useful for Intercity passenger services...

 

Ref Yorkshire - my guess is at an absolute minimum the MML electrification to Sheffield will continue across to Doncaster (and I think it will also connect to Wakefield) even if nothing else happens in CP5. The original government announcement for freight taking it that far makes no sense standing alone (but it doesn't have to, it's a broad strategy not a detailed plan...)

Link to post
Share on other sites

And also regen braking, which linked with energy metering could mean your "fuel costs" are substantially lower on a new machine than the current (sorry) loco's are - but I agree - I don't think pure replacement is the big point here, the issue is what we'll need for a future network (which is of currently uncertain scope.)

 

In terms of replacement (which I agree isn't the main point) - there is *some* advantage to having one big fleet of "like" machines - fewer parts, better knowledge etc...

 

 

 

 

I think that's a big assumption - I don't think it's a bad assumption from where we are - but it's a big one. Several things could affect this.

 

One is what happens to the deep sea container market as a whole (something almost completely outside the railways control) - Felixstowe has invested heavily in additional terminal capacity, IIRC it has the capability to nearly double the number of trains it dispatches (subject to the double tracking on the branch) - okay Felixstowe has an aspiration to increase rail's market share there also, but will Felixstowe keep growing in the face of competition from Gateway, or stay static, or could traffic there even fall? 

 

We don't know.

 

"Global stuff" may also have an impact, will China still dominate imports in 10 years? Will imports fall? If China still dominates, will high value shipments be moving more and more to overland routes (it's already starting to happen) which would see them more likely to be moving via the channel tunnel (or short-sea ports) and not via the giant deep sea ports at all?

 

I think that more terminals having electric capability is a bit more than a "we don't know" at this stage, it seems almost inevitable that you'll be able to add Bristol and Wentloog terminals to the electrified network, at least using a "last mile" machine - Southampton is "on the plan" and seems very likely to be added via one route or another. I personally think that Wakefield may be once we find out the final plans, and if the TPX wiring does go to Hull then Selby will as well...

 

More change? The freight operators are already making the case for Felixstowe-Nuneaton to be high on the next list of routes wired. That's not really something you can take as an indicator of not being interested in electric traction either!

 

And the numbers that Gateway is quoting as it's design figures are huge - we don't know what the outcome of that will be, but I suspect if it's even half what they say then it could swallow most of Freightliner's existing fleet!

 

Add to that Freightliner has just gained trains that can be electrically hauled from DRS as you mention below, but has no spare electrics to haul them...

 

 

 

 

I think there's a lot of logic in that - but DRS are saying the 88 (or a 68!) will cope with their (max length) current trains over the Northern fells...again, what the reality will be is not yet known.

 

Another variable? NR may yet wade in on this argument in some places, where there may be capacity gains for the whole railway by demanding a traction change to something that does a better job of keeping out of the way of passenger services. Mandating electric traction on the WCML North of Preston is likely to be cheaper to the industry as a whole than four tracking...

 

 

 

 

I could also throw you lots of busy freight locations that are either already wired, or will be soon - for example Newport is currently 100% diesel, and will be wired - hopefull along with many of the yards through South Wales - so i'm not convinced the fact that some other places will not be wired (yet) "proves" that electric freight haulage will not, can not, grow.

 

If you want a fun example, EWS has a lot of tonnage between South Wales and Yorks/Lincs - the current routing for that is the logical one via Gloucester, Water Orton, etc. You're spot on that route is not currently being proposed to be wired in the first round of electrification.

 

But - it doesn't mean you can't electrically haul that freight though, as (assuming the required connections at the North end are done) they could run either via "The Electric Spine" or via London and the ECML.

 

The whole "electric spine" idea looks pretty useless initially as only a couple of freight trains would be able to use most of it - but as a link in a wired network it makes a lot more sense - assuming NR do their job of turning a theoretical political target into a real, useful bit of railway infrastructure which links to the current wired network properly.

 

 

 

 

 

Deep into the assumptions again...

 

Firstly, yet again, the new designs are not identical to the old designs, but newer, but have features that the old ones do not - so there may even be diagrams right now that don't make sense for electric haulage with a 92, but might with something that you can "last mile".

Leaving aside that DBS already uses 92s to Doncaster, we don't know what the electrified network in Yorkshire/Lincolnshire will actually look like yet, so it's impossible for anyone to say that conventional or last-mile electrics will not be able to be used on freight flows.

 

As for "I can foresee 66s still being used" - yes, I don't think anyone is arguing that all trains will be (or could be) electrically hauled any time soon, even in area's where there's a lot of wiring there will be places that will never be wired, and commercial reality, even in a theoretical fully wired network you'd need diesels for engineers traffic, which in the current commercial environment would need to be really useful engines on the other five days a week also. 

 

 

 

 

So, to put what you've just said in another way...

They have a very small fleet.

They have more trains already that could be run with an electric loco (with a re-route) but aren't.

 

Before you say the re-route is impossible, IIRC their Hams and Trafford Park trains have paths via both routes already...

 

 

 

 

But* have just invested in a fleet of new electrics...

 

(*And yes, with the caveat that DRS's traction policy has never been.....conventional)

 

 

 

 

Make your mind up. ;)

 

I don't think the only reason FL run their electrics is because BR did - I think if there was no advantage they would have swapped them for diesels during the first decade of privatisation, dark days when electric traction was almost a dirty word.

 

The loco's were sold and leased back, so there's no "we own it so it's free" advantage - and they incur considerable operational costs at Ipswich swapping traction, which I can't imagine they would do if there were no positives to the operation (beyond rather vague "green credentials" - which they don't overtly play on unlike some other FOCs) - they could even have moved the traction change to Crewe and shut the presence at Ipswich down totally which you might assume would have been operationally much easier and cheaper if there was no advantage in the electrics other than on the northern fells.

 

I would suspect that more HP, so better pathing on the South end of the GEML and WCML is one factor.

Good points about the regen braking and the fewer parts and knowledge required, however money most definitely talks - everything is scrutinised down to the last £, so if overall the replacement option isn't the cheapest, I doubt it'll happen.  

 

Secondly, the Felixstowe/Gateway point may be a huge assumption, but it's whats projected. If everything works out like economists have forecasted, whether other countries take up China's mantle, shipping is forecast to go up incredibly. IIRC the purpose of London Gateway was not to replace, but simply to alleviate the huge problems that Felixstowe would have to endure with ship capacity (open to correction as ever), so this seems to suggest that Felixstowe will remain as busy as it is now, and the fact they are/or plan to end up putting in a loop somewhere along the branch as well as all this enhancement for London Gateway suggests that they intend to run more freight traffic out of Felixstowe regardless of what Gateway is doing growth wise, and Gateway is forecast to have over 30 trains each way a day. I agree with your possible modal shift though - China, Kazakhstan and Poland are already developing ways to get trans-continental rail freight journey times cut down through customs and border patrol as it currently takes 7 days, and in the article I read they hope they can cut it down to 6 if the border checks change to just a quick flick through of the paperwork as opposed to searching every wagon. DBS appear to be taking a keen interest in this as it cuts down shipping times by about 4 days as opposed to going via sea, so lots of potential for a massive shake-up admittedly.  

 

With regard to your points about Wentloog and Bristol, all well and good if they get wires, but how many trains a day do they see? That's a genuine question as I don't know, but the few I can think of are Daventry-Wentloog, Southampton-Wentloog, and Bristol-Tilbury/Felixstowe. Only the Bristol ones appear to be able to go under the wires as they go via London, and the whole point of going Cross-Country via Gloucester and Water Orton is that it's quicker than via London, and it free's up valuable paths on the GWML. In fact, I highly doubt they could path anymore freight down the GWML post-Crossrail, there will be passenger trains on the fasts and slows every 2-3 minutes. And with your point about Felixstowe-Selby/Doncaster having paths via London, yes they do, but their booked route AFAIK is via Bury St Edmunds, Ely and Peterborough, as it's quicker, and saves capacity through bottlenecks like Stratford and the ECML south of Peterborough. The Trafford Park-Felixstowe only went under the wires as they worked out they could use the same 66 as on the Harwich tanks to take the train down to Felixstowe, thus saving themselves a 66 - until then they'd been sending it via Leicester and Peterborough, and whilst it proves it can be done, it also shows they only switch to electric traction if the benefits are huge, such as saving a valuable 66 for GBRf's growing portfolio.  

 

And therein lies the problem with electric spine - a very good first step even though it doesn't change much for freight, but only as long as a rolling-programme of electrification continues - for example, in the next election, what if priorities change, or Labour comes back into power? They don't seem to have a good record of electrification (in fact that's the only thing the coalition is good for  :mosking: ), so if the wiring stops post CP5, we're going to have an electric spine which hasn't really done what it's supposed to do, ie bring down the cost of electrifying freight arteries and encouraging change to electric traction.  

 

When I referred to "I can foresee 66's being used" I meant under the wires as places like Barnetby and Immingham won't be electrified. And it's not exactly last mile as they're a fair distance from Doncaster, and for the freight involved, electrics would have to be paired up for the tonnages on these freight flows - however, here's hoping DBS do more traction changes in the future, as currently they only do it on the 4E26/6E26 steel trains to Scunthorpe.  

 

Yes GBRf's Intermodals are pathed both ways, but they stick to their usual routes - Doncaster's and Selby's via Ely, Hams Hall and Manchester via London, because it's quicker the way they do it, or it saves them a diesel locomotive in the case of one train a day, the case of Felixstowe-Manchester.  

 

In the case of Freightliner, i had made my mind up with regards to replacement in that they won't need replacements, because if you remember this whole discussion started when Phil referred to them as outdated.  ;) However, if they want to expand their electric portfolio, than new purchases are the way forward in this case. Finally, with regards to Freightliner's current use of electric traction, I think in hindsight I'm actually inclined to agree with you - they wouldn't do it if there wasn't a benefit(s). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...