Glorious NSE

New DBS freight flows this year (new flows, not changes in FOC) - courtesy of the rolling list on the Freightmaster forum.

- Sand from Angerstein to Lea Interchange (DBS)

- Slag from Port Talbot to Lea Interchange (DBS)

- coal from G-c-G to Onllwyn (DBS)

- china clay from Aberdeen to Workington (DBS)

- stone from Peak Forest to West Burton (DBS)

- steel from Port Talbot to Dollands Moor (DBS)

- MoD traffic to Donnington (DBS)

- limestone from Hardendale to Port Talbot (DBS)

- daily intermodal service from Thamesport to Birch Coppice (DBS)

- daily intermodal service from Hams Hall to Mossend (DBS)

Add - winning the Stobart/Tesco contract from DRS

Add - winning a "one operator" contract for LaFarge which will see all their traffic move to DBS

Add - winning the Humber oil traffic back

Nope. DBS certainly can't be bothered to do anything in the UK anymore...

DBS started a new service with Stobart a month or two back doing just that, so not exactly zilch...

Like that pic across the river Jo.

Before dismissing it as an option, it might be worth reflecting on the possibility that it might make more sense to just continue double-heading the few services that need that sort of power?

It makes some sense in the very short term if they are paying leasing charges for that loco anyway and if it were otherwise standing idle, but leasing two loco's to do a job where one would work has to be more expensive in the longer term, even before taking fuel into account.

To my mind, if they were talking of doing it long term they would have to be looking at trains being 50% longer to make it pay - for instance if they were talking of 2+48 on Humber oil trains.

They did run 2+42 coal trains for a bit which worked except there was almost nowhere the train could fit into for regulation purposes!

I guess they might be able to retime some of the 60 duties to work overnight to be less of an issue in that regard, but I doubt it's possible with all of them without impacting on use of other assets like wagons, access to terminals etc.

My feeling is that if they get withdrawn we just won't see them return......

Pretty sure all of the usable ones have been withdrawn....and reinstated....and withdrawn....and reinstated...etc etc

Anyway, has the curtain finally fallen on the Brush Type 5's??

I still doubt this is a final curtain, although they may be all out of traffic for a short while, especially likely over Christmas...longer term though DBS won't be able to cope with the loco's it has, especially if it reckons on using two per train!

Longer term they still have a need for a heavy-haul loco, whether they'll go for a refurb 60, a repowered 60, a modded "heavyhaul" 66 or something brand new and shiny I have no clue - cycling them in and out of traffic as needed or running two loco's instead of one are not long term solutions though.

I did hear from a very reliable source (ie, he'd been to Siemens earlier that week) that Siemens may be looking at buying some cheap from DB, and re-engine with a Cat lump and use them as hire locos, either UK or Europe. The shells are in good condition, with very little, if any, rust on the very worst examples. Siemens and DB have a very good working relationship apparently

Isn't there in the region of 20-odd that are "terminal" non-runners, good candidates they could offload without affecting the usable(ish) fleet?

Use them as a template for rebuilds on the rest?

I merely quoted what I read elsewhere. DRS did loose some dedicated 66 traffic already.

Yes, they lose the Tesco contract, i'd broadly call that 2 or 3 loco's worth a day though of the 20 class 66's they have, and in terms of Anglo-Scottish intermodals it's just 1 of the 5 workings each way through Carlisle.

Don't get me wrong, i'm sure it's a big blow to them, but it's not the end of the world.

It's also only a traffic loss in terms of DRS themselves, the traffic will still be on rail.

And it terms of "the overall picture for Railfreight" this seems to be widely regarded as a good thing, we've already had new traffic appearing internationally for Stobart that DRS would not have been able to handle.

Similarly as Fastline lost/cancelled its 56 work really.

They were hit hard by the big drop in intermodal traffic at the start of the recession and decided to just walk away - the drop in intermodal traffic has largely reversed itself since.

The overall picture is just not good, even if it "only" means less 66's to be bored by.

It's not all bad though. Unfortunately in terms of this thread the places where it's really not good are things like steel traffic, staple class 60 jobs.

Is that because as a state owned company they aren't as worried about "certain parts" of the balance sheet as the other FOC's ?

Rumours of a national strategic reserve based in Cumbria rather than in a tunnel in Wiltshire...?

Are DRS a private company? I thought they were part of BNFL...

DRS are a private company, albeit owned by the nuclear decomissioning authority according to their website. Does that make them owned by the government? Sorta Maybe I guess, muddied greatly by the owning organisation being a Qango so not really accountable to anyone...

Dave - DB Schenker (and all the other freight operating companies) are companies in their own right, there are no freight franchises and the assets do not belong to the government.

"We" might have paid for the class 60's but EW&S bought them off "us" back in the mid 1990s.

I still agree that DRS has way more loco's than it needs - but I still say that's always been the case and it's apparently never bothered them much before?

And no real work for 66's? Ask Malcolm, Asda, Tate & Lyle etc whether they want 40 year old traction instead of a nice 99% reliable modern unit on their anglo Scottish intermodals.

Not sure they are running at the moment, traffic comes and goes though so it won't be too long i'm sure till it's back...

In the past few years stock used has included JNA Falcons (working to Westbury or Hinksey) Autoballasters (to Westbury or Fairwater) or the HOBC set (Fairwater) and depending on contract it's either an EWS or Freightliner 66 up front.

In the US the current generation of EOTDs apply the brake from the back as well as the front of the train (as well as stuff like whether the back of the train is moving or not!) useful as modern train lengths are flirting with 2 miles long...not sure it helps with getting the brakes off though - having said that most trains that kind of length also have a loco on the rear as well so presumably the compressor on that would be helping...

Okay - why "Dutch" - it's because at the time this livery came out Nederlandse Spoorwagen (hope I spelt that right! ) were painting trains in the style seen here on the 1500 class (ex Woodhead loco): http://busentrein.websitemaker.nl/treinen/396983 back when it was introduced.

And as applied to a class 31 over here, you can see the similarities...

http://ukrailwaypics.fotopic.net/p34281720.html

Shed? Look at the profile of a class 66 head on, and think of a garden shed...

Ive noticed that on the MCA "Outers" one end has the Swinghook coupling also, so continuing the Bachmann theory perhaps thier class 66 detailing pack would be useful as the safety bar(?) is missing as well. Although itd be for cosmetic use for me, id want something working to go with my working screwlinks.

Setup info should be as follows if it helps:

500001 to 500060 are MBA-C with buffers and swingheads both ends

500061 to 500200 are MBA-B with buckeyes and no buffers.

500201 to 500240 are MCA-A with buffers and swingheads both ends

500241 to 500300 are MDA-A with buckeyes and no buffers.

500301 to 500350 are MOA-A with buffers and screwlinks

I think the difference in the replies above depends on whether you are talking about the livery as applied to loco's or wagons.

On wagons it was introduced in the early 1980s, on loco's it was much later on as per James's post.

What exactly is the problem with the bogies? I'm not in the market for any of these wagons as they are no use on Blacklade and my involvement with any club project may be limited . However I can't make out whether people say saying "they are the wrong type of bogie" or whether people feel they're the right type of bogie but inadequetely rendered

I'm not really sure how to answer that in the context of your question, they don't look particularly like any particular other style of bogie (at least ones used in this country) so I guess i'd have to go with the latter...

Compare Beast's rather useful side-on shot from earlier in the thread (Hurst to the left, Dapol to the right):

And the prototype:

Watch out for anouncements about RTR inter-war Belgian ferry wagons, then I'll have proof... or maybe not.

Have you built any Falcon's yet Jon??

I suspect that's always going to happen (at least to some extent) when it's a steel-sided wagon with flat tops to the sides, on the real thing the sides between the ribs will be the thickness of a bit of sheet steel, that would be paper-thin on a model - so you either have to make the sides thicker than reality or the ribs shallower to compensate...

"Proper" coalfish (like Hornby's second attempt) and similar have an angled bit along the tops of the sides which goes some way towards disguising it I guess...

Suspect the chassis (such as it is) is bespoke.

Bogies were also used on the BRA/BYA, HTA and FCA wagons from Thrall, and have been retro-fitted to BAA/BBA and I suspect derivatives.

Michel, MBA were built new for EWS by Thrall in the late 90s (1998-ish?) - the final 100 of the 300 built were then cut down within a year or so of building (it's possible they didn't even enter traffic) to become MCA (with buffers) and MDA (no buffers)

The fleet has passed to DBS with no further changes apart from the loss of ladders at some stage.

any prices on these?

 

While I am at, what are Mba used for? apart from ballast (I presume?)

MCA/MDA are ballast wagons

MBA are used for aggregate, scrap, coal - they were used on timber traffic for a bit as well.

The give away is the bit about "buffers are provided for those who want to convert to buffered versions"

Yes I read that, but it says that as part of the list of features of the MBA not the MCA so thought i'd just check!

Thanks for the confirmation DapolDave.

Looks good - presume you get buffers to add to the MCA or leave off for an MDA?