Why Class 37s?

[12LDA28C]

MPVs can only do 75mph, while 37s can do up to 90mph, while MPVs have more limited haulage capacity. You can't use MPVs on NR's test trains, where the extra speed a 37 offers over 66s and 70s is often vital, it's the same reason COLAS acquired 67s, while their better route availability offers greater flexibility. Barring a new build to replace the very much worn out 31s, nothing else would do the job the 37s can do as comprehensively as a 37.

Pretty sure the DRS 37s are 80mph max, what about the Colas locos?

 

[Skymonster]

With suggestions being that COLAS is on the lookout for additional MTU HST power cars (with some of the soon-to-be-stood-down GWR Castle sets being mooted as replacements) for test train work - and fewer now employed on autumnal RHTT - the long reign of the 37 on the mainline on anything other than heritage / tour work may well be coming nearer to a close than certain enthusiasts might like.

 

[12LDA28C]

As regards the FL 47 - I was unaware of this - where is this based? I can understand it though - I suppose being a 47 stops control steal the road learning train for a failed 66.

Usually Basford Hall I believe, although it has worked off Leeds Midland Road and Southampton at various times, as requirements dictate.

 

[Spartacus]

Pretty sure the DRS 37s are 80mph max, what about the Colas locos?

DRS have a mostly 80mph fleet, but not exclusively. Colas' is mostly 90mph.

 

[driverd]

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking here. It's not about 37s having a 'competitive advantage'.

Well, yes it is. With any other freight fleet, its clear that more modern locos are economically more viable - thus the removal of Class 47/56/57/60 (add BR loco of your choice) with Class 66/67/68/88.

Colas have a fleet of 37s, as do DRS (who I believe sold some locos off and leased them back). So if Colas and/or DRS bid for RHTT work and lost out because Freightliner or DB bid cheaper, and a loco's RA was not a concern then you would not see 37s on RHTT work any more.

But DRS keep them specifically for RHTT contracts, as opposed to sourcing something new. This is my point. 37s dont do any other regular work in any numbers as a matter of course.

Equally, Colas introduced a large number of 37s specifically for the test train contract.

If 37s are part of your fleet, why would you spend a lot of money replacing them with new locos (at more than a million pounds per loco, plus the associated cost of training drivers and maintenance staff on the new fleet)? How would that make commercial sense?

Because older assets generally cost more to run, more to maintain, harder to source spares etc. Why did DRS bother with 68s when they had perfectly good 47s? Because it made commercial sense. Why are 37s slightly different? The TOC equivalent would be to use a 101 today.

MPVs can only do 75mph, while 37s can do up to 90mph, while MPVs have more limited haulage capacity. You can't use MPVs on NR's test trains, where the extra speed a 37 offers over 66s and 70s is often vital, it's the same reason COLAS acquired 67s, while their better route availability offers greater flexibility. Barring a new build to replace the very much worn out 31s, nothing else would do the job the 37s can do as comprehensively as a 37.

Incorrect. Colas had a single MPV for test trains until very recently. 153s are being introduced for test trains. There are various other none 37 options. A worn out 31 is only worn our until its refurbished (just like half the 37s on the mainline today were 10 years ago). Why the 37s over the 31s is still a fair question.

With suggestions being that COLAS is on the lookout for additional MTU HST power cars (with some of the soon-to-be-stood-down GWR Castle sets being mooted as replacements) for test train work - and fewer now employed on autumnal RHTT - the long reign of the 37 on the mainline on anything other than heritage / tour work may well be coming nearer to a close than certain enthusiasts might like.

Can you provide a source for this? Why would the castle HSTs make a difference when there's no shortage of MTU powered Class 43s available? Would also seem odd as the ex-GWR 43s are wired differently to the ex-LNER ones, which inhibits some fleet flexibility options.

I'd have imagined if Colas wanted more HSTs, they would have sourced them from the many ex-LNER ones available and probably already done it - correct me if you know otherwise though.

 

[Spartacus]

Incorrect. Colas had a single MPV for test trains until very recently. 153s are being introduced for test trains. There are various other none 37 options. A worn out 31 is only worn our until its refurbished (just like half the 37s on the mainline today were 10 years ago). Why the 37s over the 31s is still a fair question.

OK, but they're hardly the most suitable. Was it vice a loco hauled or DMU test train?

The 31s were buggered, there's only so much you spend on refurbishing things before it becomes financially unviable, and the 31 failures were becoming a joke, the number that failed shortly after leaving RTC was farcical, I know, I was dealing with their delays. When the 31s were withdrawn in favour of 37s things improved dramatically. OK, the 37s themselves are getting a bit long in the tooth now, but they're still nowhere as bad as the 31s were when they were taken off the test trains.

 

[12LDA28C]

But DRS keep them specifically for RHTT contracts, as opposed to sourcing something new. This is my point. 37s dont do any other regular work in any numbers as a matter of course.

It's my understanding that DRS sold many of its Class 37s and now lease some of them back as necessary, is that not the case? They were certainly on a tender list late last year.

Either way, that would suggest that DRS do not see a long-term need for 37s and would rather get them 'off the books' as capital assets and instead hire them in on an ad-hoc basis as required.

 

[43096]

It's my understanding that DRS sold many of its Class 37s and now lease some of them back as necessary, is that not the case? They were certainly on a tender list late last year.

It didn’t happen: there were no takers, at least at a price acceptable to DRS.

 

[D365]

It didn’t happen: there were no takers, at least at a price acceptable to DRS.

Thanks - saved me some typing.

Worth noting that WCRC also supplies 37s for RHTT season and snowplough duty. So I suspect that, be it DRS, Colas or WCRC, 37s will see at least a few more years mainline use - especially as DRS put a lot of money into their 37/4s.

 

[12LDA28C]

Commercial sense? No. Climate sense? Yes. It's weird how we are constantly told about climate change and what we joe public should be doing to help, but companies are allowed to continue being massive polluters and nothing seems to be said to them. Rules for thee and not for me it seems.

In the grand scheme of things I don't think a few 1960s-era diesel locos running around the network is the biggest concern in the world as far as climate change goes, do you? 'Massive polluters', really?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jan 2023 ==

Thanks - saved me some typing.

Worth noting that WCRC also supplies 37s for RHTT season and snowplough duty. So I suspect that, be it DRS, Colas or WCRC, 37s will see at least a few more years mainline use - especially as DRS put a lot of money into their 37/4s.

A lot of taxpayers money, yes? And them put them up for sale a few years later, successfully or not.

 

[D365]

A lot of taxpayers money, yes? And them put them up for sale a few years later, successfully or not.

Sale-and-leaseback. Rather different.

 

[12LDA28C]

Sale-and-leaseback. Rather different.

Which makes the astronomical cost of bringing some of those 37/4s back from the dead even more wasteful. If they weren't planning to keep them long-term (or has there been a policy change?) then surely some would have been available for lease anyway, even from private owners if necessary, at much reduced cost.

If DRS consider they have a requirement for 37s in the future, why put them up for sale at all?

 

[43096]

If DRS consider they have a requirement for 37s in the future, why put them up for sale at all?

Because they wanted to hire/lease them instead! Presumably they were looking for a way to cut their costs (specifically maintenance) but no one was mug enough to take on 50-60 year old locos and their ever increasing maintenance costs.

 

[D365]

... but no one was mug enough to take on 50-60 year old locos and their ever increasing maintenance costs.

Some seem to have deep enough pockets.

 

[Skymonster]

Can you provide a source for this? Why would the castle HSTs make a difference when there's no shortage of MTU powered Class 43s available? Would also seem odd as the ex-GWR 43s are wired differently to the ex-LNER ones, which inhibits some fleet flexibility options.

I'd have imagined if Colas wanted more HSTs, they would have sourced them from the many ex-LNER ones available and probably already done it - correct me if you know otherwise though.

I could, but I’m not going to - let’s just say “informed sources” (which excludes the tea lady) and leave it there - take this as you wish. My understanding is that COLAS is looking for runners (or recent runners), rather than power cars that have been festering in a damp siding in eastern England for a couple of years. The power cars from the Castle sets being stood down are the next such to become available. It’s not a done deal but it’s being looked at.

 

[43096]

I could, but I’m not going to - let’s just say “informed sources” (which excludes the tea lady) and leave it there - take this as you wish. My understanding is that COLAS is looking for runners (or recent runners), rather than power cars that have been festering in a damp siding in eastern England for a couple of years. The power cars from the Castle sets being stood down are the next such to become available. It’s not a done deal but it’s being looked at.

I assume you are referring to the report on WNXX that Colas are looking at leasing Porterbrook power cars once they finish with GWR. That “gen” is of course garbage, as none of the Castle fleet is owned by Porterbrook.

 

[driverd]

I could, but I’m not going to - let’s just say “informed sources” (which excludes the tea lady) and leave it there - take this as you wish. My understanding is that COLAS is looking for runners (or recent runners), rather than power cars that have been festering in a damp siding in eastern England for a couple of years. The power cars from the Castle sets being stood down are the next such to become available. It’s not a done deal but it’s being looked at.

Fair enough - that does seem to make sense - though why now? As in, why was the opportunity for a larger HST fleet not taken when the ex-LNER pc's became available?

Could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure you'd also be introducing the issue of not-total-compatibility between the LNER and GWR locos (my understanding is, yes, they would work together, but you'd lose on board systems, much like when an EMT power car was coupled with VTEC stock/pc, bell buzzer and various other bits and bobs didn't work).

 

[Skymonster]

I assume you are referring to the report on WNXX that Colas are looking at leasing Porterbrook power cars once they finish with GWR. That “gen” is of course garbage, as none of the Castle fleet is owned by Porterbrook.

No, not WNXX - I don’t regard that as a robust enough source.

 

[DarloRich]

As regards emissions, it will be interesting to see how 37207 performs, if and when it emerges from Wolverton as a hybrid loco.

what is the story here? I have missed this.

 

[Julia]

Commercial sense? No. Climate sense? Yes. It's weird how we are constantly told about climate change and what we joe public should be doing to help, but companies are allowed to continue being massive polluters and nothing seems to be said to them. Rules for thee and not for me it seems.

If you're considering the whole-life climate impact, then a large proportion of that is in manufacture, not operations. Working the 37s until they drop is better for the climate overall than repeatedly buying the "latest and cleanest" every ten years or so - especially when we're still discovering the impact of newer tech (such as where all the lithium for batteries might come from...).

 

[12LDA28C]

what is the story here? I have missed this.

37207 is currently just a bodyshell at Wolverton and is in the (very slow) process of being converted to a diesel / battery hybrid loco, that's about as much as I know. I viewed the loco late last year and even the cabs had been stripped of equipment.

 

[Trainbike46]

If you're considering the whole-life climate impact, then a large proportion of that is in manufacture, not operations. Working the 37s until they drop is better for the climate overall than repeatedly buying the "latest and cleanest" every ten years or so - especially when we're still discovering the impact of newer tech (such as where all the lithium for batteries might come from...).

This is true for products that have high manufacturing emissions and low operational ones, such as laptops, phones etc.

Locomotives, of ANY type, have relatively low manufacturing emissions and high operational emissions, and there early replacement can make sense, if the newer version is sufficiently better, though that is unlikely to be the case based on the figures upthread, unless you can switch a diesel out for electric or bimode.

Not that I think the 37s emisssions are particularly relevant even when just considering a rail emissions

 

[43096]

No, not WNXX - I don’t regard that as a robust enough source.

 

[DarloRich]

37207 is currently just a bodyshell at Wolverton and is in the (very slow) process of being converted to a diesel / battery hybrid loco, that's about as much as I know. I viewed the loco late last year and even the cabs had been stripped of equipment.

thanks - an interesting development

 

[Bevan Price]

Pretty sure the DRS 37s are 80mph max, what about the Colas locos?

Most 37s originally had 90mph limits, but a lot were reduced to 80 mph.

 

[D365]

Most 37s originally had 90mph limits, but a lot were reduced to 80 mph.

Those 37s which were refurbished in the 80s (HGR/Heavy General Repair) had the bogies replaced with some sort of Class 50 derivative, and the top speed reduced accordingly. The 37/0s didn’t make it into the refurbishment before the programme was cut short.

 

[Richard Scott]

Those 37s which were refurbished in the 80s (HGR/Heavy General Repair) had the bogies replaced with some sort of Class 50 derivative, and the top speed reduced accordingly. The 37/0s didn’t make it into the refurbishment before the programme was cut short.

Although some 37/0s received the regeared bogies and numbered from 37350 onwards.

 

[D6130]

Although some 37/0s received the regeared bogies and numbered from 37350 onwards.

IIRC, all of the class were originally maximum speed 90 mph, but were reduced to 80 some time in the 1990s. (Perhaps at about the same time as the class 20s were reduced from 75 to 60 mph?).

 

[eldomtom2]

37207 is currently just a bodyshell at Wolverton and is in the (very slow) process of being converted to a diesel / battery hybrid loco, that's about as much as I know. I viewed the loco late last year and even the cabs had been stripped of equipment.

I'm having trouble seeing what the point of a diesel-battery loco is - you charge it up and then when the battery runs dry you switch to diesel?

 

[zwk500]

I'm having trouble seeing what the point of a diesel-battery loco is - you charge it up and then when the battery runs dry you switch to diesel?

You use the electricity to get you started quietly and with lots of torque, especially in urban areas, then can switch to diesel when it's cruising and away from people's houses.