UK locos going to be exported abroad

[matt]

86501 works freightliners solo.

 

[ainsworth74]

Ah, so yet another disaster caused by privatisation

In part. I think on the whole freight has done really well out of privatisation and would be strongly opposed to any suggestion of renationalisation. But, it certainly isn't perfect. Whilst we bemoan ROSCOs on the passenger side of the railway I do think that when the freight sectors were privatised the locomotives should have been sold to ROSCOs as that might have helped avoid the situation we now find where there are 60s rotting away in Totton(?) as DBS would be unlikely to continue leasing locomotives it has no use for.

 

[Goatboy]

It does seem a shame that modern locomotives are allowed to rot away just so that nobody else can use them. It makes perfect sense from a business perspective, but that doesn't stop it being a damn shame and a failing of the original system that it was allowed to happen.

 

[HSTEd]

In part. I think on the whole freight has done really well out of privatisation and would be strongly opposed to any suggestion of renationalisation. But, it certainly isn't perfect. Whilst we bemoan ROSCOs on the passenger side of the railway I do think that when the freight sectors were privatised the locomotives should have been sold to ROSCOs as that might have helped avoid the situation we now find where there are 60s rotting away in Totton(?) as DBS would be unlikely to continue leasing locomotives it has no use for.

Unfortunately it now appears that the majority of the improvement of freight services since privatisation has been purchased at the expense of a subsidy increase that appears to approach an order of magnitude compared to that enjoyed by the freight system overall before privatisation. (As I understand it, the freight system was a net payer before privatisation and is now a subsidy junkie like everything else).

When we have modernisation plan locomotives in service and modern ones sitting gathering rust with the attendant cost increases, amongst all sorts of other problems, I am not sure it is worth it.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Unfortunately it now appears that the majority of the improvement of freight services since privatisation has been purchased at the expense of a subsidy increase that appears to approach an order of magnitude compared to that enjoyed by the freight system overall before privatisation. (As I understand it, the freight system was a net payer before privatisation and is now a subsidy junkie like everything else).

I think its worth noting that BR made big profits from the transport of coal, steel and petroleum products, much of which has now disappeared. Surely paying subsidies to take intermodal freight off the motorway is no bad thing?

 

[HSTEd]

I think its worth noting that BR made big profits from the transport of coal, steel and petroleum products, much of which has now disappeared. Surely paying subsidies to take intermodal freight off the motorway is no bad thing?

Coal shipments have not actually dropped that much, just that most of them start from ports rather than from coal mines now. (More than 60 million tonnes of coal is shipped a year still).

Indeed the average distance a coal trainload moves has probably increased.

Less than profitable operations like wagonload freight have also been almost entirely discarded since privatisation (today's wagonload operations are only a poor shadow of Speedlink), leaving the private operators with only the things that make them money.

And paying subsidies might not be a bad thing, but considering this is basically an enormous PFI its not really good in my opinion. (The private operators can extort huge subsidies for moving freight using equipment purchased for a pittance and can generate large profits for minimal new investment).

 

[RichmondCommu]

Coal shipments have not actually dropped that much, just that most of them start from ports rather than from coal mines now. (More than 60 million tonnes of coal is shipped a year still).

Indeed the average distance a coal trainload moves has probably increased.

Less than profitable operations like wagonload freight have also been almost entirely discarded since privatisation (today's wagonload operations are only a poor shadow of Speedlink), leaving the private operators with only the things that make them money.

And paying subsidies might not be a bad thing, but considering this is basically an enormous PFI its not really good in my opinion. (The private operators can extort huge subsidies for moving freight using equipment purchased for a pittance and can generate large profits for minimal new investment).

But that still leaves steel and petroleum which have both declined. And a drop in coal revenue has to be offset by something else. Much of the equipment that was inherited was unreliable and outdated with Freightliner having a huge reliance on Class 47's.

As for wagon load operations, even the mighty SNCF is now bailing out as fast as it can. Coal traffic will only continue to decline which means more emphasis will have to be placed on intermodal and subsidies will help pay for start up costs.

 

[HSTEd]

But that still leaves steel and petroleum which have both declined. And a drop in coal revenue has to be offset by something else. Much of the equipment that was inherited was unreliable and outdated with Freightliner having a huge reliance on Class 47's.

Indeed, BR had to make do with ageing unreliable equipment whereas most of the equipment that has replaced it is supposed to have far lower operating costs.
(And the fact that the only significant freight locomotive orders have been ~440 Class 66s really says something, its not very impressive over nearly 20 years, and before you mention the 70s, that is only 30 units).

As for wagon load operations, even the mighty SNCF is now bailing out as fast as it can. Coal traffic will only continue to decline which means more emphasis will have to be placed on intermodal and subsidies will help pay for start up costs.

Wagon Load operations being unprofitable does not explain why on earth our privatised system requires colossal (per unit freight moved) subsidies despite having already disposed of this anchor on them?

Intermodal operations do not have significantly higher start up costs than existing freight operations (indeed well wagons and some container forklifts are probably cheaper than a rake of merry go round wagons) so I don't see why they would need help.

This is just a way to skim off huge sums of money for minimal investment (total private investment in rail is £400m a year or some such, most estimates put subsidy to railfreight operators in the hundreds of millions of pound range)

 

[captainbigun]

86501 works freightliners solo.

It does, it can sit in for a 90 turn, it can't sit in for a pair of 86/6s on a fully loaded liner.

However 86501, being an ex 86/4 has the less manly AEI282AZ variant. It is regeared and has additional work on the armatures to better handle the heat generated. Despite this it is prone to birds nesting. It's right on the limit of overspeeding the motor.

A 92 has ~8k hp short term, though the 86/6s have nearly 12k hp as a pair, short term rating.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Indeed, BR had to make do with ageing unreliable equipment whereas most of the equipment that has replaced it is supposed to have far lower operating costs.
(And the fact that the only significant freight locomotive orders have been ~440 Class 66s really says something, its not very impressive over nearly 20 years, and before you mention the 70s, that is only 30 units).

Well from where I'm sitting the purchase of 440 loco's plus a heck of a lot of brand new rolling stock equates to a substantial amount of investment. Indeed, I'd be interested to know much of the freight rolling stock running around today existed before privatisation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Intermodal operations do not have significantly higher start up costs than existing freight operations (indeed well wagons and some container forklifts are probably cheaper than a rake of merry go round wagons) so I don't see why they would need help.

This is just a way to skim off huge sums of money for minimal investment (total private investment in rail is £400m a year or some such, most estimates put subsidy to railfreight operators in the hundreds of millions of pound range)

In that case who paid for the highly successful Daventry operation along with improvements to other existing freight yards? Who paid for the Barking freight terminal which DBS now uses for its Chanel Tunnel operations? Improvements to rail served container terminals (and we're talking more than a few forklifts)? And of course all the gauge enhancement work that has taken place. Not to mention brand new freight terminals in the West Midlands and other areas of the UK.

 

[Big Chris]

One of the main hobbles of freight competition, possibly greater than loco hoarding, is ownership of yards. DBS have a major advantage over other companies on this front. I can't see why they were not retained by Railtrack/Network Rail to aid competitors break into the market.

 

[Goatboy]

One of the main hobbles of freight competition, possibly greater than loco hoarding, is ownership of yards. DBS have a major advantage over other companies on this front. I can't see why they were not retained by Railtrack/Network Rail to aid competitors break into the market.

Were these not being transferred into NR ownership for just this reason?

 

[HSTEd]

Well from where I'm sitting the purchase of 440 loco's plus a heck of a lot of brand new rolling stock equates to a substantial amount of investment. Indeed, I'd be interested to know much of the freight rolling stock running around today existed before privatisation.

Rolling stock for freight use is really not that expensive considering the enormous amount of money squandered on the subsidies.
And 470 locomotives over 20 years is only around 23 per year, which translates to a total spend in the range of ~£75m/yr, which considering the ballooning subsidy is really nothing.

We could have done that easily with the money available, and this is before we consider profits.

In that case who paid for the highly successful Daventry operation along with improvements to other existing freight yards? Who paid for the Barking freight terminal which DBS now uses for its Chanel Tunnel operations? Improvements to rail served container terminals (and we're talking more than a few forklifts)? And of course all the gauge enhancement work that has taken place. Not to mention brand new freight terminals in the West Midlands and other areas of the UK.

In most cases it was the taxpayer, they demand we build them all this infrastructure and then require us to subsidise there profit making using it.

We pay twice or even three times.

 

[coxy]

Were these not being transferred into NR ownership for just this reason?

If that's the case, what's stopping NR from also taking ownership of all of the locos which are rotting away around the country ?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Wouldn't it be better to put the freight locos with the ROSCOs rather than with NR?

 

[ainsworth74]

Wouldn't it be better to put the freight locos with the ROSCOs rather than with NR?

Yes not quite sure why you'd put locomotives with the nations infrastructure operator? Giving the yards and what not to them makes total sense but locomotives?

 

[HSTEd]

I've just been looking up modern 25kV locomotives.....

Co-Co with similar traction performance to Cl92s could have approaching 10,000hp (continuous, not peak) with modern traction systems.

That is just incredible.

As most British intermodals operate primarily in the power limited regime, this means we can probably double the length of the train (at-least compared to Cl90 turns) with still only one locomotive.

And replace triple headed Class 66s with one locomotive.

We need more electrification...

 

[t_star2001uk]

Took this picture in the shed at Willesden on Tuesday last week...

 

[jamieintercity]

any ideas if theres any more 56s, 66s, 86s or 92s going to be exported this year?

 

[Boothby97]

any ideas if theres any more 56s, 66s, 86s or 92s going to be exported this year?

Class 56s- 56117 should be next, then 56096 (repainted into Europheonix colours) could be another candidate. 56086 is a spares donor for EP. Anymore Class 56s that would be exported would have to purchased by EP.

Class 66s- Freightliner may look into exporting more 66/4s, DBS mays shuffle there 66/0s a bit around Poland, France and UK.

Class 86s- 86217 awaiting export, 86228 is next undergoing overhaul. With 86229, 86234, 86246 and 86251 are in the EPEX pool so should follow. 86701 and 86702 are not fitted with GSMR so 86701 cannot move out of Willesden under it's own power 86702 (located at Ilford) should be being moved to Willesden soon.
Class 92s- Depends on how successful the first 3 are.


Thanks, Sam

 

[captainbigun]

702 will not go back to WN, it and 701 will be moved into storage, probably in the next month.

86242 is likely to follow 228.

 

[Boothby97]

702 will not go back to WN, it and 701 will be moved into storage, probably in the next month.

86242 is likely to follow 228.

86242 is in the EPUK pool, which for UK locos!

 

[captainbigun]

Definitely not going to be a UK loco.

 

[theblackwatch]

Any idea where 56096 is likely to be going please captainbigun, if you're able to say? I'd been expecting it to emerge in Floyd colours for export to Hungary so was rather surprised when it appeared in Europhoenix livery.

 

[Boothby97]

Any idea where 56096 is likely to be going please captainbigun, if you're able to say? I'd been expecting it to emerge in Floyd colours for export to Hungary so was rather surprised when it appeared in Europhoenix livery.

I believe I heard it was a European demonstrator.

 

[brianthegiant]

Were these not being transferred into NR ownership for just this reason?

Indeed, there's a consultation out at the moment. NR will own the bulk of the freight terminals, with smaller chunks of land (sheds) being retained by Freight operators.

 

[jamieintercity]

Class 56s- 56117 should be next, then 56096 (repainted into Europheonix colours) could be another candidate. 56086 is a spares donor for EP. Anymore Class 56s that would be exported would have to purchased by EP.

Class 66s- Freightliner may look into exporting more 66/4s, DBS mays shuffle there 66/0s a bit around Poland, France and UK.

Class 86s- 86217 awaiting export, 86228 is next undergoing overhaul. With 86229, 86234, 86246 and 86251 are in the EPEX pool so should follow. 86701 and 86702 are not fitted with GSMR so 86701 cannot move out of Willesden under it's own power 86702 (located at Ilford) should be being moved to Willesden soon.
Class 92s- Depends on how successful the first 3 are.


Thanks, Sam

Thanks for clearing that up, has 66412 entered traffic in Poland and the same for the three 92s in Bulgaria?

 

[Boothby97]

Thanks for clearing that up, has 66412 entered traffic in Poland and the same for the three 92s in Bulgaria?

Couldn't tell you sorry
Thanks, Sam

 

[CockneySparrow]

Its worth noting that Schenker are working on project to replace some of the road haulage into Europe with class 66s running through the tunnel, this will mean that some of the class 66 will come back on the daily workings or be temporarily swapped abroad

 

[HSTEd]

Running diesels through the tunnel?

Do they really have the power to keep the freight train's speed up, and I thought diesels weren't permitted in the tunnel?