Stobart Rail 66048

[Edinburgh Junction]

Following the news from wnxx.com, DB Schenker have released their 66048 in Stobart Rail colours, to match their first stobart loco, 92017 'Bart the Engine'. This engine however, takes the name of 'James the Engine'... pointless really, as 66414 was all ready in that livery and had that name.

 

The only difference is the light clusters (from the view I get).

 

What does everyone think? Not bad, though it looks wrong with those light clusters...

 

DIFFERENCES SPOTTED:

 

Bit under the clusters, DRS have a red panel, DBS have a yellow panel

The cab end of the roof, DRS have it black, DBS have it blue

The 'James the Engine' name, DRS have the 'James' and 'Engine bit below the orange line, DBS have it above the line

 

So quite different, but still, I prefer DRS' one.

 

Pictures of the DBS one

http://www.daveb.gallery.fotopic.net/c1797243.html

 

Jack

[br2975]

"....... This engine however, takes the name of 'James the Engine'... pointless really, as 66414 was all ready in that livery and had that name....... "

.

Jack,

.

The livery and name may well have been a requirement of "Eddie Stobart plc" when the contract was drawn up.

.

This could prove to be a lucrative contract for DB(S) so they will no doubt abide by the wishes of the Stobart organisation.

.

Brian R

[beast66606]

It had made Carlisle was the last news I had on it - presumably heading North for the first DBS worked Southbound working - on ? 01/01/10 ??

[big T]

Whether it stays on the Stobart traffic will have to be seen - I know the flows haven't gone to DB yet but it looks a bit odd with 92017 on the silver bullets.

[Craig Watson]

It had made Carlisle was the last news I had on it - presumably heading North for the first DBS worked Southbound working - on ? 01/01/10 ??

 

It worked to Mossend today behind 92035,

 

http://www.alastair-blackwood.fotopic.net/p62698929.html

 

The Stobart traffic transfers to DBS on 04/01/10

 

Cheers

 

Craig

[Craig Watson]

. This engine however, takes the name of 'James the Engine'... pointless really, as 66414 was all ready in that livery and had that name.

 

The only difference is the light clusters (from the view I get).

 

 

Not really pointless as the DRS "James" (and it's mate"Eddie") will lose the Stobart livery as they have lost the traffic to DBS.

 

There's a big difference between the two locos in that the (new) DBS one is an original 66/0 whereas the DRS one was a low emission 66/9 variant

with the extra bodyside door.

 

The roof is also different, the DRS one has a black roof, the new DBS version has a blue roof.

 

Cheers

 

Craig

[magic_monkey09]

surely with all this craze over the enviroment DRS had the greener option by having the low emmission 66 whilst DB Schenkers 66's are nearly 10 years old I know the 92 is supposidly greener but after all it is electric and most of the uk's eletricty comes from fossil fuel powered power stations does it not? Although i am aware of the fact that stobart wanted European access for its freight and with DBS being the Larger operator they could provide it for stobart whereas DRS could not surely it would make sense instead of DBS repainting 66's for the job , Eddie and james just be transferred over from DRS with rumours of DRS having excess traction as it is and the possibility of returning more to their leasing company's?

 

Note: i am expecting someone to comment on the fact that 66/0's have a larger fuel capacity compared to the 66/9's however they are good for the enviroment and 10 years younger so probably more reliable strictly speaking lol

[Edwin_m]

DBS also has excess traction so certainly wouldn't want to reduce a competitor's cost base by increasing their own. And wasn't the DRS Eddie "crocked" by being worked too hard - DBS probably wouldn't want it for that reason either.

 

In terms of CO2 there may not be much difference between the two types of 66s - I've never seen any figures but similar emission reductions in the States tend to be aimed at sulphur and nitrogen oxides and can even make CO2 emission and fuel consumption worse...

[hairyhandedfool]

Unless I'm mistaken, the DRS 66's had DRS logos on the cab doors, the DBS one doesn't appear to have any DBS branding.

[Simon_R]

Painted at Toton. The cab sides and front is a vinyl wrap that was applied by the same company who do the road fleet for Stobart and took 4 days to apply!

[Guest Phil]

Painted at Toton. The cab sides and front is a vinyl wrap that was applied by the same company who do the road fleet for Stobart and took 4 days to apply!

 

 

 

They should have gone to Coachmann, he'd have knocked it out, fully lined out in two days - with two coats of varnish too !!!!

[magic_monkey09]

the DBS stobart 66 should have been called "Hans the engine"

[supersprinter156]

DBS also has excess traction so certainly wouldn't want to reduce a competitor's cost base by increasing their own. And wasn't the DRS Eddie "crocked" by being worked too hard - DBS probably wouldn't want it for that reason either.

 

In terms of CO2 there may not be much difference between the two types of 66s - I've never seen any figures but similar emission reductions in the States tend to be aimed at sulphur and nitrogen oxides and can even make CO2 emission and fuel consumption worse...

 

A good friend of mine in the know told me that with the DRS low emissions 66's the fuel tank has only just enough fuel to go from Daventry to Grangemouth. In other words any delays and no stop off for fuel at Carlisle could see the 66 running on vapours from just after Cumbernauld!

[big jim]

saw the stobart 66 in bescot earlier while i was passing on the M6

 

regards the low emission fuel capacity, if i remember right if a new loco went on it kingmoor it could go to scotland, back to daventry and just about make it back to kingmoor but not much futher!!

 

as a guide they hold about 5700 litres of diesel and do 1.5mpg (if your lucky), you can do the maths of that

 

i remember running low on fuel at penrith one night heading north with the stobarts, as i went round the left hander at the top of penrith station the loco lost power and began to splutter a bit, luckily its pretty flat/downhill to carlisle so i managed to coast 95% of the way right into kingmoor depot, i called carlise box to tell them i thought i was about to run out of fuel and they informed me the route was set right into kingmoor so just keep going as far as i could, drs summonsed the loco that would be replacing mine to the south of the yard to come out and rescue me if required but luckily it wasn't needed, when i got out and looked at the gauge it was actually sitting below empty and i found out the next day it only had about 50 gallons of fuel left in it!!

[magic_monkey09]

DBS also has excess traction so certainly wouldn't want to reduce a competitor's cost base by increasing their own. And wasn't the DRS Eddie "crocked" by being worked too hard - DBS probably wouldn't want it for that reason either

 

True but DBS's excess traction consists of mainly unserviceable locomotives which they own such as long stored class 37's 56's and 58's not to mention pretty much the entire class 60 fleet with the majority of them unserviceable. it is only recenlty because of the recession that they have been able to stop 66's for light maintenance, other than that their entire 66 fleet is in regular use along with the 67's on hire to W&S, FGW and routine enterprise runs. The 66's and 67's are the only loco's DBS have to pay bills on their lease so seems sensible that they use them as much as they can. In other words their excess traction is not a problem because they own the loco's that are doing nothing and cost nothing to leave them to one side.

 

at DRS's end their excess traction are their leased class 66's as they are overpowered for the work they are used on eg Nuclear flask runs and seasonal RHTT's class 37's and 20's are more suited for this work, Also they have ordered too many of the them having lost contracts they would be used on aswell . DRS's 37's are refurbished and much more reliable than DBS's 37's and are in greater demand from Railtour Company's and other TOC's for Shuttle services so they make money that way. DRS's 66's are sitting around not being used yet DRS are still having to pay lease on them so from a business point of view its a waste of money. Im not 100% sure but i think that DRS also own their 37's, 47's and 20's so have no lease payments on them. Regarding the 57's they picked up from Freightliner i think they are Leased aswell yet we havn't seen them doing particularly much either, for some reason class 47's are preffered over them. So Bascially DRS are paying for Locomotives they are not using. Their own fleet of classic BR locomotives seems to be in more regular use rather than the leasing company's GM's so that probably explains why they are faced with returning 66's. Also to note they will soon be taking on even more BR traction in the forms of 37683 and 37409 which were recently overhauled at Barrow Hill for DRS.

 

Yes i believe that Eddie is over worked but this is only because of its corporate advertising livery and Stobart probably insist its use, other than than the rest of the 66 fleet are seeing less work with DRS. I wouldn't be suprised if Eddie is returned as it would save DRS a repaint and is wearing a Customers livery who chose to take their business elsewhere and i doubt DRS like sponsoring stobart for free.

[Jonboy]

Still to hear the outcome of 66048's bid to become a real shed at this point....

[Edwin_m]

It seems to me that if DBS have shifted 66s to France then they must have had some to spare at the time, though of course if they have found gainful employment there then it would be difficult to get them back.

 

The leasing issue has been quoted as a reason to stand down everything except 66s and 67s, but it works the other way round if all their 66s are in use and they need another loco. I would guess some of the stored 60s are fairly near serviceable, and restoring one would be a lot cheaper than paying the leasing fees for an extra 66.

[Simon_R]

I would imagine, having taken the decision to store the 60's unservicable, that if DBS did need additional traction for anything other than a permenant flow, they would hire in traction from another TOC as per common practice by the smaller TOC's. Why go to the trouble of ordering new if your only going to need it for a short time?

 

I'm afraid the 60's are history now. As much as we love them, and hold a candle as the last new BR locos, they have had their day and too complex and costly to re-build. DRS have a fleet of ex-BR locos that they have refurbished at great expense, but they had a huge 'spares bin' in the form of literally hundreds of un-used locos to access parts from, and the locos they are running are essentially simple machines that are easy to service and maintain. If someone where to consider refurbishing a 60 they would probably end up with a bill larger than leasing a shiney new 66 or 70, and still have a 30yr old loco.

 

If anyone knows of a commercially avaliable proven replacement engine that will fit a 60 please let someone at DBS toton shed know..... Anyone on here got contacts at MTU ???

[magic_monkey09]

It is a good point that perhaps DBS/ old EWS did had plenty of 66's before therefore shifted many off to France to work but lets not forget that this was before the downfall of the class 60. only in the last 3 years have we seen huge numbers of the fleet stored or Damaged beyond repair whislt in service. In better days 66's and 60's pretty much shared workloads but now the entire burden is on the reduced number of 66's in the uk. Maybe its not so much of a problem right now this minute but once the economy begins to pick up again there will be a shortage of traction. DBS could afford to let 66's go to France at the time as they had enough class 60's to cover the work in the UK, this is not the case now...

 

DBS need to invest in repairing enough class 60's in order to handle current and future traffic. Double shedding is not a long-term solution as it reduces fleet availability and costs more to fuel not to mention pushing the 66's to the limits perhaps causing engine damage. Even using class 59's is not good enough as the fleet is too small compared to the amount of work they have to do. Class 60's are needed whether DBS like it or not and if they dont then they are going to have to sign up for class 70's aswell. If they continue to do nothing their train lengths will be reduced to capabilities of a 66 only and face the threat of losing contracts to other operators that can provide longer trains eg Freightliner HeavyHaul....

[StaffsOatcake]

DBS seem to be winning contracts left, right and centre many of which they will allocate sheds and skips. I'm sure DBS will undercut any previous contract price in order to win the contract and once all the other freight companies are unable to compete competitively with DBS they will be forced out of business leaving DBS to hike their prices to recoup any losses they incur under cutting. If the economy picks up there may be a surge in traffic but DBS will be more than able to manage any growth with their current fleet of 66, 67 and the small pool of 60's. But the days of the 60's are numbered on cost grounds

[Guest eddie reffin]

Still to hear the outcome of 66048's bid to become a real shed at this point....

 

 

James arrived in Inverness yard last night and was still to be unloaded as of 2200 02/03/2010

[lonesome_whistle]

 

 

Class 60's are needed whether DBS like it or not and if they dont then they are going to have to sign up for class 70's aswell.

 

As has already been pointed out there is an overabundance of modern, reliable freight power in the UK and that is likely to be the situation for the foreseeable future (indeed, if current rumours hold water, then there will be even more spare capacity soon). I suspect that nobody will be using class 70s (at least in their current form) within a few years on present form. With their untried Jenbacher power units surpassing even the class 60's Mirlees in the unreliability stakes there is every chance that the whole sorry farce will rival some of BR's modernisation plan cock ups. Whatever one thinks about EMD products, the current 710 powerplant can trace its railroad lineage back to the introduction of the 567 back when when diesel locomotives were just a pipedream in the UK. Throughout most of the intervening 70 years these engines have proved pretty reliable particularly in the 12 and 16 cylinder variants commonly seen in Britain. If I wanted something more powerful than a 66 then I would give consideration to a 16 cylinder 710 in a class 66 bodyshell - 4000hp without the hassle of designing a completely new locomotive and it would work out of the box.

[magic_monkey09]

As has already been pointed out there is an overabundance of modern, reliable freight power in the UK and that is likely to be the situation for the foreseeable future (indeed, if current rumours hold water, then there will be even more spare capacity soon). I suspect that nobody will be using class 70s (at least in their current form) within a few years on present form. With their untried Jenbacher power units surpassing even the class 60's Mirlees in the unreliability stakes there is every chance that the whole sorry farce will rival some of BR's modernisation plan cock ups. Whatever one thinks about EMD products, the current 710 powerplant can trace its railroad lineage back to the introduction of the 567 back when when diesel locomotives were just a pipedream in the UK. Throughout most of the intervening 70 years these engines have proved pretty reliable particularly in the 12 and 16 cylinder variants commonly seen in Britain. If I wanted something more powerful than a 66 then I would give consideration to a 16 cylinder 710 in a class 66 bodyshell - 4000hp without the hassle of designing a completely new locomotive and it would work out of the box.

 

wouldnt there then be an issue of traction with the 66 being the lighter option when considering wheelslip and so on true the engine could handle the load but the locomotives power to weight ratio wouldn't be suitable for heavy train loads

[DavidB-AU]

wouldnt there then be an issue of traction with the 66 being the lighter option when considering wheelslip and so on true the engine could handle the load but the locomotives power to weight ratio wouldn't be suitable for heavy train loads

There are 4000+hp locos with the 16 cylinder 710 engine only 4t heavier than a 66 running Down Under hauling MUCH heavier trains over our torturous main lines with 1 in 50 ruling gradients. Some of the more recent AC tracion units triple head 10,000t coal trains (typically 91 x 120t coal hoppers). They are a scaled down EMD SD70/SD70ACe.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downer_EDI_Rail_GT46C

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downer_EDI_Rail_GT46C_ACe

 

Also 4000+hp units with tried and true GE 7FDL-16 engines.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NR_class

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGL_Rail_C44aci

 

Cheers

David

[lonesome_whistle]

There are 4000+hp locos with the 16 cylinder 710 engine only 4t heavier than a 66 running Down Under hauling MUCH heavier trains over our torturous main lines with 1 in 50 ruling gradients. Some of the more recent AC tracion units triple head 10,000t coal trains (typically 91 x 120t coal hoppers). They are a scaled down EMD SD70/SD70ACe.

 

 

Cheers

David

 

Indeed, and it should be remembered that the UK's heaviest freight trains (5000 tonnes) are handled by single class 59s with a 16-645 prime mover so there is no question that a 16 cyl 710 would fit. The additional horsepower available from the 710 would be enough to cope with any UK freight trains that are likely to run in the foreseeable future.

A class 59 in Hungerford up loop some years ago with a Merehead-Acton "jumbo".