How Long Can Heritage Traction Keep On Going?

[Peter Sarf]

Class 68s are RA7, no idea about the 88s. They may well share lots of similar components but until you know the final weight of the loco it will be impossible to know what route availability it will have.

I suspect that if the 88s RA (Route Availability) is low enough to cover for 37s and 20s then they will be light because their diesel engine wont be powerful enough for a long trip away from the wires. But then again I wonder what the RA of the re-engined 73s is ?.

 

[alexl92]

Just a quick point. If a loco is owned and operated by a mainline FOC is it really a "heritage loco"? I'd suggest not.

British FOCs are far from the only operators in Europe of 50/60's era locomotives, yet I'm not aware of mainland European users having their stock described as heritage.

I suppose they're considered heritage because they're from the same era as what we now refer to as Heritage DMUs, if not earlier.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Just a quick point. If a loco is owned and operated by a mainline FOC is it really a "heritage loco"? I'd suggest not.

British FOCs are far from the only operators in Europe of 50/60's era locomotives, yet I'm not aware of mainland European users having their stock described as heritage.

I suppose there are enough of these old locos in service to justify not calling them heritage. They are not exactly one or two odd preserved locos dotted around.

Perhaps it is this disposable world we live in where anything older then five years is dubious. I see perfectly serviceable items being thrown away. Of course outside the railway fraternity the idea of travelling at 125 mph in forty year old trains would probably trigger alarm bells. I should imagine that a lot of people in the DFT (or whatever it is this week) assume trains are like cars and are really a bit dodgy after ten to fifteen years !.

 

[al.currie93]

Perhaps it is this disposable world we live in where anything older then five years is dubious. I see perfectly serviceable items being thrown away. Of course outside the railway fraternity the idea of travelling at 125 mph in forty year old trains would probably trigger alarm bells. I should imagine that a lot of people in the DFT (or whatever it is this week) assume trains are like cars and are really a bit dodgy after ten to fifteen years !.

I agree. I really hate the 'It's old so replace it' attitude so rampant these days!

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Class 68s are RA7, no idea about the 88s. They may well share lots of similar components but until you know the final weight of the loco it will be impossible to know what route availability it will have.

Won't 88s be heavier with the transformer and all the other equipment they'll need onboard to run from overhead?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Won't 88s be heavier with the transformer and all the other equipment they'll need onboard to run from overhead?

To a certain extent that'll be counteracted by the much smaller "last mile" engine, and smaller fuel tanks...

 

[al.currie93]

Won't 88s be heavier with the transformer and all the other equipment they'll need onboard to run from overhead?

To a certain extent that'll be counteracted by the much smaller "last mile" engine, and smaller fuel tanks...

Indeed, I reckon that they'll probably end up weighing the same because of this, and I doubt they'll be lighter than an 86 either. Besides, I don't think we'll be seeing 88s replacing 37s, so I reckon they at least will soldier on happily for some time.

 

[green howards]

People seem to forget that TOC's have rules to follow about maintenance standards - fitness to run exams etc - when you are standing looking at 37XXX or 47XXX or 55XXX very little of it is the original 37XXX from 1960 something.

Over time they receive a lot of maintenance, some of it heavy where power units, generators, bogies, bodywork, electrical components are all replaced with re-manufactured or new parts. Over 50 years of operation this will have happened several times and very little of the loco other than its frame will be original.

Re-manufacturing / refurbishing a large diesel engine or generator is the norm in all areas of heavy industry - its not like putting a re-con engine in a car - what you get back might as well be new. Same with bogies, etc.

I would venture that some meridians and voyagers are running round with higher mileages and higher engine hours that many 37,s at the moment.

A good example that is well documented online is 55022 - look at napier chronicles website and the can see the history of power units, generators, bogies, body replacements this loco has had - add to that the work the current owner has done and well...triggers broom...works the same, but very little is what originally left the Vulcan foundry in 1960 something.

How long can heritage traction keep going - indefinitely - it might be a 50 year old design running round - but very little of it - IS - 50 years old.

 

[DownSouth]

Which one is better is probably very debatable - though I'd personally go with the DRS strategy as being more moral when resource consumption is considered.

A sound suggestion, just so long as you don't fall into the trap of assuming that maintaining an existing locomotive does not involve any resource consumption.

It shouldn't be too hard for people with the information on component failure rates, availability of spares (both from part stripping and from manufacturing of spares) and relative performance to find the crossover point at which replacement becomes more economical than repair.

As everyone else seems to be saying, it is a possibility, but there will only be room for a 57/9 batch, as all the other batches are taken up by Sprinter half-vehicles and existing 57s.

Rubbish.

This obsession with numbering is really odd, and would exist as a restriction only in the fertile minds of a particularly special set of enthusiasts. Real world railway operators would not let numbering get in the way of their plans, it's an administrative triviality that would be easily sorted out.

There are real reasons that there won't be any more "57" rebuilds (whether numbered as a 57xxx or something else, such as:

• The structural components of the Class 47 locos have roughly 15 years less time left in them than when the first "57" rebuilds first happened, which at this point in their life cycle is a significant chunk of their remaining service life - and therefore ability to pay off the cost of the rebuild - gone.
• The modernisation happening in North America at the moment is different to that which had the old GP engines becoming available in the 1990s - the used drivetrain packages which are now becoming available for use in rebuilds (largely from the SD40-2 fleet) wouldn't fit in a Class 47 body and couldn't be imported into Europe even if they did.
• The Class 57 project has taught operators the meaning of the poor man pays twice which is why there have been no more Class 57 rebuilds since 2004. Better to pay three times as much for a new build loco which will be far more reliable and provide 2-3 times the service life of a cheap refurb.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I suppose they're considered heritage because they're from the same era as what we now refer to as Heritage DMUs, if not earlier.

And because the re-privatisation of BR draws a line in the sand between modern locos and old/heritage ex-BR locos.

 

[yorksrob]

There was a very attractive class 47 in two tone green in Freightliners Stourton depot today. Looked a little out of place with all the modern loco's !

 

[Boothby97]

There was a very attractive class 47 in two tone green in Freightliners Stourton depot today. Looked a little out of place with all the modern loco's !

47830, should be becoming a trip loco (for wagon moves etc.)
Does look good, can't wait to see it myself

 

[yorksrob]

47830, should be becoming a trip loco (for wagon moves etc.)
Does look good, can't wait to see it myself

Ah, that'll be it then.

Makes a nice change from the usual loco's!

 

[Minilad]

There was a very attractive class 47 in two tone green in Freightliners Stourton depot today. Looked a little out of place with all the modern loco's !

Oxymoron alert

Light blue touch paper. Stand well back

 

[yorksrob]

Oxymoron alert

Light blue touch paper. Stand well back

To be fair, no loco's ever going to be as beautiful as an EPB !

 

[Minilad]

To be fair, no loco's ever going to be as beautiful as an EPB !

What is that quote again....something about the eye of the beer holder

 

[Peter Sarf]

To be fair, no loco's ever going to be as beautiful as an EPB !

I would say a Western (class 52) was the most attractive loco. But I would accept a Hymek (class 35) - compare that to a duff (47) incidentally. Both 35s and 52s are sadly now relegated to only heritage.

A class 68 is not bad mind you.

Have to disagree regarding EPBs (with their cosy bouncy compartment seats). The class 442s should live forever - maybe.

 

[broadgage]

In theory, given enough money to source replacement components, an old diesel loco could be kept running indefinatly.
IN PRACTICE though the limit is the wearing out or breakage of larger unique engine components, spares usually exist and can be stockpiled, but stocks will eventually be used up. It seems unlikely that special manufacture of highly stressed, close tolerance engine components would be viable.

Steam locos by contrast are relatively low technology, if a new one can be built from scratch, as Tornado was, then that suggests that any broken or worn out component could be manufactured if needed.

Building a steamer is expensive but simpler than a diesel.

Looking further ahead, I doubt that any relatively modern DMUs will still be running in 100 years time, far too complex once specialist spares are exhausted. In 2115, a class 159 might well be "stuffed and mounted" in the NRM, but in running order ? I doubt it.

I expect that a few class 66s will be running in 100 years, they are at present so numerous, that a few could be kept running by cannibalizing others.
I doubt that any 47s will be running in 100 years, some spares are already in short supply.

 

[alexl92]

In theory, given enough money to source replacement components, an old diesel loco could be kept running indefinatly.
IN PRACTICE though the limit is the wearing out or breakage of larger unique engine components, spares usually exist and can be stockpiled, but stocks will eventually be used up. It seems unlikely that special manufacture of highly stressed, close tolerance engine components would be viable.

Steam locos by contrast are relatively low technology, if a new one can be built from scratch, as Tornado was, then that suggests that any broken or worn out component could be manufactured if needed.

Building a steamer is expensive but simpler than a diesel.

Looking further ahead, I doubt that any relatively modern DMUs will still be running in 100 years time, far too complex once specialist spares are exhausted. In 2115, a class 159 might well be "stuffed and mounted" in the NRM, but in running order ? I doubt it.

I expect that a few class 66s will be running in 100 years, they are at present so numerous, that a few could be kept running by cannibalizing others.
I doubt that any 47s will be running in 100 years, some spares are already in short supply.

So the future's in a return to steam?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

How many parts could be replaced by 3D printed parts (I'm guessing that a lot of engine parts can't be 3D printed)?

 

[DownSouth]

I expect that a few class 66s will be running in 100 years, they are at present so numerous, that a few could be kept running by cannibalizing others.

More importantly, they are just one sub-class of a much larger fleet (the EMD JT42 export series) which also shares components with thousands of other EMD export and domestic locos around the world

The structural components will probably be the limiting factor.

How many parts could be replaced by 3D printed parts (I'm guessing that a lot of engine parts can't be 3D printed)?

The CSIRO in Australia has invented a 3D printing process for titanium which is used for (among other things) critical structural components of high-grade custom-frame bicycles. I don't know if their process can be used for steel or if another one already exists.

3D printing is not efficient though, so you wouldn't want to be doing that for essential parts on more than an occasional basis.

 

[Peter Sarf]

As far as I know 3D printers only print in plastic (thats their "ink"). So we would have to wait for printers that can print using hardened metal which would require a lot more heat etc. I would suspect that a laser scan of an old component and then laser cutting of a lump of steel would be far easier.

EDIT :- I see the above slipped in while I was typing away (oops).

Yes I can see heritage steam locos plodding on for far longer than any diesel locos.

I run an old car and we, in the club, try to rescue every scrapped example - for spares. We have management systems (engine, locking, electric-windows) not too unreliable but they are 25 year old computers so a worry !. We have plastic trim. So I can relate to those who are keeping old locos going. I bet a 20 or 37 is easier than a 66 will be. But yes a steady stream of parts from gradually withdrawn examples is what will be needed.

 

[CosherB]

Pending the (hopeful) success of the 73/9s for GBRf, would DRS consider fitting new engines to the 37s and fit with ETH across the sub-class to provide a mixed use lightweight loco? Bit of an optimistic punt.....

 

[HSTEd]

In America they have electric locomotives that date from 1918 in regular revenue earning use. (The Iowa Traction Railroad - which is not a heritage operation, it is an operational short line railroad).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As far as I know 3D printers only print in plastic (thats their "ink"). So we would have to wait for printers that can print using hardened metal which would require a lot more heat etc. I would suspect that a laser scan of an old component and then laser cutting of a lump of steel would be far easier.

Things have moved on since then.

Now we can do 3D printing with titanium and stainless steel amongst other things.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Things have moved on since then.

Now we can do 3D printing with titanium and stainless steel amongst other things.

You make a very good point however I would have thought that even now many component parts are still castings for a very good reason.

 

[Skutter]

You make a very good point however I would have thought that even now many component parts are still castings for a very good reason.

Yes, but you can 3D print the pattern for the casting, which can be a lot quicker than making a traditional pattern.

When cars started to get computer-controlled ignition/injection some said it was the end of customising and tuning engines - but these days you can get all sorts of custom chips and programs from third party suppliers. Cars have a bigger market than locos, but given enough time/money/expertise anything can be reproduced or replaced.

 

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

DRS and now Colas seem to adopt a strategy of "Keep it going as long as possible to minimise instantaneous capital cost." DBS on the other hand definitely had a strategy of "Replace everything at massive capital expense in the hopeof minimising running costs." Which one is better is probably very debatable - though I'd personally go with the DRS strategy as being more moral when resource consumption is considered.

If I read this correctly, you are bemoaning the scrapping of things which are not yet life-expired because (among other things) the result is new resources being consumed in building replacements. What (I reckon) you are missing is the horrendous fuel consumption and emissions of locos built when noone cared about fuel availability or air quality. Ignoring the issue of running costs and reliability, is it morally wrong to get rid of polluting vehicles (rail, road, air) and invest in 'cleaner' ones? The Government's car scrappage scheme resulted in thousands of not-yet-life-expired-but-uneconomical-and-dirty cars being scrapped and replaced by a growing number of Greenline/hybrid/electric cars - was that also morally wrong? Especially when so much of a scrapped loco/car will be recycled in any case...

 

[alexl92]

If I read this correctly, you are bemoaning the scrapping of things which are not yet life-expired because (among other things) the result is new resources being consumed in building replacements. What (I reckon) you are missing is the horrendous fuel consumption and emissions of locos built when noone cared about fuel availability or air quality. Ignoring the issue of running costs and reliability, is it morally wrong to get rid of polluting vehicles (rail, road, air) and invest in 'cleaner' ones? The Government's car scrappage scheme resulted in thousands of not-yet-life-expired-but-uneconomical-and-dirty cars being scrapped and replaced by a growing number of Greenline/hybrid/electric cars - was that also morally wrong? Especially when so much of a scrapped loco/car will be recycled in any case...

I personally think the scrappage scheme was wrong. It's actually resulted in a lot of slightly older vehicles which were not necessarily *that* un-eco and dirty being destroyed for no good reason. For example, the older Volkswagen 1.9TDI engine can achieve 80mpg on a motorway if driven sensibly and featured in Golfs and similar models from the mid-90s until around 2007. Some new petrols don't actually even achieve half that mpg (despite manufacturers lies) and yet there's now a shortage of older, cheaper cars that are actually decent because the gov decided to scrap them all - so instead people are buying slightly newer but dirtier petrols.
For the scrappage scheme to work it needed to be more carefully defined.

Not to mention from a nostalgic/motoring history point-of-view the number of future classics that were scrapped by people who had no idea about the value or status of the vehicle they were condemning.

 

[Crossover]

I'd imagine that the 57/3s will be retained for thunderbird duties seeing as they have the dellners fitted - I don't know whether any other class can recover a failed pendolino as easily?

Only Voyagers and other Pendolinos, I believe - not sure anything else is capabale of hauling a Pendolino set

 

[NotATrainspott]

I personally think the scrappage scheme was wrong. It's actually resulted in a lot of slightly older vehicles which were not necessarily *that* un-eco and dirty being destroyed for no good reason. For example, the older Volkswagen 1.9TDI engine can achieve 80mpg on a motorway if driven sensibly and featured in Golfs and similar models from the mid-90s until around 2007. Some new petrols don't actually even achieve half that mpg (despite manufacturers lies) and yet there's now a shortage of older, cheaper cars that are actually decent because the gov decided to scrap them all - so instead people are buying slightly newer but dirtier petrols.
For the scrappage scheme to work it needed to be more carefully defined.

Not to mention from a nostalgic/motoring history point-of-view the number of future classics that were scrapped by people who had no idea about the value or status of the vehicle they were condemning.

Whatever the impact of the car scheme, the balance of improved efficiency versus more resources being needed is quite different for cars than it is for trains. Cars tend to be used for a few hours each day for a decade or two before they're scrapped, whereas trains are going to be used or will be running almost all day, every day, for three decades or more. As a result, even a relatively minor improvement in efficiency or pollution levels would have a very huge impact over the life of the vehicle. On a similar note, the biggest business for Airbus and Boeing right now is replacing existing planes with similar models with new engine options and efficiency upgrades, since even a 10% reduction in fuel consumption has a massive impact upon the total amount of fuel needed to fly commercially over the lifetime of the plane.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I personally think the scrappage scheme was wrong. It's actually resulted in a lot of slightly older vehicles which were not necessarily *that* un-eco and dirty being destroyed for no good reason. For example, the older Volkswagen 1.9TDI engine can achieve 80mpg on a motorway if driven sensibly and featured in Golfs and similar models from the mid-90s until around 2007. Some new petrols don't actually even achieve half that mpg (despite manufacturers lies) and yet there's now a shortage of older, cheaper cars that are actually decent because the gov decided to scrap them all - so instead people are buying slightly newer but dirtier petrols.
For the scrappage scheme to work it needed to be more carefully defined.

Not to mention from a nostalgic/motoring history point-of-view the number of future classics that were scrapped by people who had no idea about the value or status of the vehicle they were condemning.

It seemed to me at the time of the car scrappage scheme that it could be counter productive. There were plenty of cars scrapped instead of being sold on that were built in the mid-late 90s iirc. Now the people who would have bought those cars second hand will now keep their existing even older car going instead. That even older car is probably even less ecological. I would imagine the energy and carbon used to make a new car is quite significant.

The real reason for the car scrappage scheme was to keep car factories going during the recession. There are a lot of jobs at stake there. Nothing to do with ecology.

Watch out for the disposable world. I have just spent all day waiting for an engineer to visit and condemn our fridge. Its ten months old and after six months needed a new compressor. Now, four months on, it runs continuously and does not cool. How much electricity is that. Well he finally arrived at the end of the ten hour slot and spent five minutes putting gas back into it. I whinged and he said it will last for about nine months. So that is seven months after the one year guarantee finishes. He said 18 months life for a fridge is reasonable !. Are we heading for a disposable world or are we there already ?. Point is it can not be very ecological changing things so often. Someone elso on this thread pointed out the obsession with "new".

What is more ecologically beneficial. A fifty year old railway engine hauling freight or dozens of new lorries shifting the same freight ?.

If we want passenger trains to be more ecological then surely we should reduce the top speed of the services ?.