Freightliner's environmental credentials down the pan

[ruggedpeak]

https://www.railjournal.com/fleet/rising-electricity-charges-forces-british-rail-freight-operator-to-revert-to-diesel-traction/

 

Freight operators not locked into the group electricity buying saw a 210% increase in electricity costs in 2021. Electricity on the railway is expensive. A lot of this info is in the proceeding pages of this thread, FL are not the only operator to do this, but others have been more coy about it.

[phil-b259]

5 hours 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.

So you want the energy regulator to force a company into bankruptcy then (which would  put huge quantities of freight back on the road).

 

Please remember that:-

 

(1) Freight operators like DB are 100% PRIVATELY OWNED and are effectively OPEN ACCESS OPERATORS. 

(2) HM Government regards Railfreight as a strictly commercial affair which should be left to ‘the power of the free market’ and should not be subsidised in any way by the taxpayer.
 

(3) Diesel fuel may be purchased from a number of different companies - all of whose will offer the option of ‘hedging’ (effectively bulk buying in advance) which provides an element of protection from day to day changes in the price of oil.

 

(4) Electricity can only be purchased from a Mano poly supplier (Network Rail) with no room to negotiate to get a better deal. Moreover Network Rail is not permitted to subsidise* the cost of electricity- the Competition and Markets Authority would represent discrimination against operators with diesel only fleets.

 

(5) The profit margin on Railfreight is very low so keeping costs as low as possible is essential to a companies long term training future.

 

(6) NR is not permitted to discriminate on traction type! The only thing it can do is point out that there are less train paths available or train lengths are limited when diesel haulage is chosen on certain routes (eg WCML over Shap) 
 

* ‘Franchised’ or directly contracted TOCs can of course get an increased subsidy from Government to cover increase in NRs electricity bills.

 

Edited July 20, 2023 by phil-b259

[black and decker boy]

New update elsewhere, 90039 now stood down by DB so all of their 90s now stored.

[The Stationmaster]

5 hours ago, St. Simon said:

 

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

Agree and I can understand that it might be awkward f getting spares for Class 90s as currently some IETs are stopped waiting repairs allegedly because a certain, rather critical, component is no longer available from the original supplier..

[woodenhead]

5 hours ago, black and decker boy said:

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.

 

I'm going to blame the model manufacturers for this downturn.

 

New class 86 - Freightliner send them to Bulgaria

New class 88 - DRS reduced their use

New class 91 and ECML scrap most of them.

New class 90 - most now stored

New class 92 - most now stored

New class 93 - Not even gotten out of the depot

 

[phil-b259]

7 hours ago, St. Simon said:

 

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

 

A 'standardised fleet is only helpful if it can cover all your jobs!

 

Given the abysmal state of UK electrification (which is all geared around commuter and InterCity services to from London* ) then even a 'standardised' electric fleet is not as useful as a 'standardised' diesel fleet - particularity when you don't have a choice of electricity supplier.

 

The bottom line is this - if the UK Government chose to offer extra subsidies / or is willing to cover the loss NR would make by significantly lowering its electricity prices then the privately owned companies will suddenly become interested in using electric traction again. 

 

 

* Yes the Scottish Government have undertaken lots of electrification in the central belt and obviously BR did various lines emanating from Glasgow but the fact remains even that was all passenger oriented.

[Pete the Elaner]

5 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

So you want the energy regulator to force a company into bankruptcy then (which would  put huge quantities of freight back on the road).

 

 

No. I never said anything like that & neither did I mean it, so please don't try to deliberately twist my meaning.

 

44 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

The bottom line is this - if the UK Government chose to offer extra subsidies / or is willing to cover the loss NR would make by significantly lowering its electricity prices then the privately owned companies will suddenly become interested in using electric traction again. 

 

 

Something along those lines.

 

 

It is a lot more efficient to generate power in larger quantities, partly because the eqiupment involved is carefully designed to work very well at a particular speed & is held at that speed. A power station generates thousands of MW. A loco diesel engine generates 3MW, which by comparison is an inefficient process. An internal combustion engine is also heavily compromised by the requirement to run it across a comparatively wide speed range.

Transmitting it at 132kV then at 25kV uses some of the power but is still more efficient than generating it on a smaller scale such as in a 12cylinder engine. It also provides the option to use any form of generation. It is not necessarily stuck with fossil fuels.

 

But the bottom line is the government is trying to push car owners to switch to EVs & pretends to be making the country as clean as possible. The only control they have over cars is taxation. They have much more regulation over rail companies, so it is hypocritical to do nothing to promote the use of electric traction.

 

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, Pete the Elaner said:

No. I never said anything like that & neither did I mean it, so please don't try to deliberately twist my meaning.

 

The point is you were implying that a regulator should issue an edict banning diesel traction on electrified lines with precious little consideration to how the railfreight industry is structured.

 

The energy regulator has been at pains to point out its remit is to look after private individuals - not businesses, which is why the energy price cap only applied to residential properties.

 

Similarly the rail regulator is there to promote competition in the railfreight sector and act as a commercial regulator not subsidise it (unlike for franchised / contracted TOCs

 

As a fully commercial enterprise its only natural that companies will organise their fleets to ensure maximum efficiency and keep controllable costs down. Doing anything else is bad for shareholders and edicts like 'thou shall use electric traction' without any measures to make said move economic will unaccountable result in the business ceasing to operate.

 

1 hour ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

But the bottom line is the government is trying to push car owners to switch to EVs & pretends to be making the country as clean as possible. The only control they have over cars is taxation. They have much more regulation over rail companies, so it is hypocritical to do nothing to promote the use of electric traction.

 

 

There is much hypocrisy being emitted from Whitehall (and its not just confined to railways....)

 

Until we get a Government which actually cares about the good of the nation rather than just clinging on to power and keeping their city friends happy not much is going to change.

 

However I would point out that sales of fuel generate substantial amounts of revenue for HM Government (VAT as well as fuel duty where applicable)- while the railway system in general requires large sums of money going the other way. If you were a been counter which would you see as most beneficial - particularly when the Governments debt is so high and interest rates have gone through the roof over the past couple of years.

 

Obviously many sensible people have concluded that the Government is eventually going to have to do something about this loss of revenue as more people switch to electric cars (if only because most motor manufacturers are making plans to shut down their conventional car production lines over the next few years - the Ford focus ends production next year with no IC replacement for example), however at the moment you get the impression that Whitehall are still carrying on as if its not going to be an issue even though ministers keep going on about net zero....

 

And they say 'Yes Minister' was just a comedy TV show...

 

 

Edited July 20, 2023 by phil-b259

[Steadfast]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

The bottom line is this - if the UK Government chose to offer extra subsidies / or is willing to cover the loss NR would make by significantly lowering its electricity prices then the privately owned companies will suddenly become interested in using electric traction again. 

I quite agree. What is really frustrating is the level of "support" / "investment" / the road industry gets from the Government, rail really is the poor relation.

 

If the government sent a bit our way to help keep electric zero emission locos on the rails, it might make a difference. But no, they'll just fire another £100 million or whatever towards lorries.

 

Jo