RailAdventure Power Cars being sent out in groups of four. Is this a waste of resources?

[Amlag]

mods note - split from here

Four former HST power cars wastefully and environmentally dubiously doing the work of ONE single loco,..madness.. yet the Govt. DfT can do nothing, unlike their short sightedly and costly instructions to GW and XC to withdraw HSTs prematurely.

 

[fgwrich]

Four former HST power cars wastefully and environmentally dubiously doing the work of ONE single loco,..madness.. yet the Govt. DfT can do nothing, unlike their short sightedly and costly instructions to GW and XC to withdraw HSTs prematurely.

Except... 2 of the 4 Power Cars had their engines running (so not exactly environmentally dubious) while at least 2 locos are needed for most of these runs for run round purposes. As for XC / GW having to withdraw theirs at the behest of the DfT - those, as you should know, are TOCs controlled by the Dft. These, owned and operated by Rail Adventure and being a private FOC, can do whatever they wish to.

And no one seem to complain when older, less environmentally efficient, 37s still roam the network mostly on scrap runs these days!

 

[43096]

Four former HST power cars wastefully and environmentally dubiously doing the work of ONE single loco,..madness.. yet the Govt. DfT can do nothing, unlike their short sightedly and costly instructions to GW and XC to withdraw HSTs prematurely.

So on the one hand you're complaining because RailAdventure are using "environmentally dubious" power cars (to use your words), but on the other hand are complaining because DfT are stopping TOCs using the very same "environmentally dubious" power cars.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who can't see the logic.

 

[ExRes]

Four former HST power cars wastefully and environmentally dubiously doing the work of ONE single loco,..madness.. yet the Govt. DfT can do nothing, unlike their short sightedly and costly instructions to GW and XC to withdraw HSTs prematurely.

What alternative do you suggest? you could have TWO not ONE 67s or 68s, both well known for burning fuel for fun, maybe some 60 year old environmentally friendly 37s or 47s? the 43s are a perfectly sensible option and, as has been pointed out, run as pairs not as a quad, as for the DfT, what do you expect them to do other than fund the electrification of 100% of the national network and subsidise the scrapping and replacement of all diesels?

 

[fgwrich]

What alternative do you suggest? you could have TWO not ONE 67s or 68s, both well known for burning fuel for fun, maybe some 60 year old environmentally friendly 37s or 47s? the 43s are a perfectly sensible option and, as has been pointed out, run as pairs not as a quad, as for the DfT, what do you expect them to do other than fund the electrification of 100% of the national network and subsidise the scrapping and replacement of all diesels?

Meanwhile

43465 & 43484 with 43468 & 43480 are working 2309 6Q78 Walton Old Junction MSC Sidings to Kirkdale CS with 777142/144/146 and the barrier array

I think there's a lot of people who seem to forget that these have relatively new MTU engines (the GC examples were the last to the refurbished in and around 2011 - 2012). Quite often with these deliveries, they've been running them in pairs with 1 engine in the pair switched off anyway.

 

[ExRes]

I think there's a lot of people who seem to forget that these have relatively new MTU engines (the GC examples were the last to the refurbished in and around 2011 - 2012). Quite often with these deliveries, they've been running them in pairs with 1 engine in the pair switched off anyway.

Quite so, I was watching a video on Rail Scene facebook of the set leaving Crewe with the loaded northbound train to see what the set up was with all four up front, the first pair were under power the second pair, as expected, were not

 

[Class15]

Except... 2 of the 4 Power Cars had their engines running (so not exactly environmentally dubious) while at least 2 locos are needed for most of these runs for run round purposes. As for XC / GW having to withdraw theirs at the behest of the DfT - those, as you should know, are TOCs controlled by the Dft. These, owned and operated by Rail Adventure and being a private FOC, can do whatever they wish to.

And no one seem to complain when older, less environmentally efficient, 37s still roam the network mostly on scrap runs these days!

I disagree - you only need 1 power car (or 1 at each end both powering) to haul a single unit. It’s wasteful using 4 locos for this purpose. It’s like having 4 class 66s hauling an RHTT train.

 

[43096]

I disagree - you only need 1 power car (or 1 at each end both powering) to haul a single unit. It’s wasteful using 4 locos for this purpose. It’s like having 4 class 66s hauling an RHTT train.

You can disagree as much as you like, but RailAdventure believe it is the right way of running their business and given their expertise I’d wager they know rather more about it than almost everyone on here.

 

[Class15]

You can disagree as much as you like, but RailAdventure believe it is the right way of running their business and given their expertise I’d wager they know rather more about it than almost everyone on here.

“Expertise”

This company owns about four locomotives and puts all of them on one stock move while GBRf, a company with more experience, uses one class 47 on the same moves.

 

[ExRes]

You can disagree as much as you like, but RailAdventure believe it is the right way of running their business and given their expertise I’d wager they know rather more about it than almost everyone on here.

Precisely, RailAdventure were able to buy the mini fleet of eight buffer fitted 43/4s for the specific purpose they're being used, the only other option was dredging through the leftovers of out dated and environmentally questionable 20s, 37s, 47s etc, some people don't seem to understand that they do not run four power cars at the same time, one pair works and one pair is shut down on the rear, they also work 60mph trains and are obviously using nowhere near the fuel they would in passenger use. The 777 deliveries use two pairs because of the shunting needed for delivery, the 555 deliveries one pair because that's what's needed and, as you say, RailAdventure specialise in this type of work so know exactly what they're doing

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Mar 2023 ==

“Expertise”

This company owns about four locomotives and puts all of them on one stock move while GBRf, a company with more experience, uses one class 47 on the same moves.

Completely wrong, what RailAdventure use in this country is not what they own plus they have 17 years of expertise in stock movements throughout Europe

 

[Class15]

Precisely, RailAdventure were able to buy the mini fleet of eight buffer fitted 43/4s for the specific purpose they're being used, the only other option was dredging through the leftovers of out dated and environmentally questionable 20s, 37s, 47s etc, some people don't seem to understand that they do not run four power cars at the same time, one pair works and one pair is shut down on the rear, they also work 60mph trains and are obviously using nowhere near the fuel they would in passenger use. The 777 deliveries use two pairs because of the shunting needed for delivery, the 555 deliveries one pair because that's what's needed and, as you say, RailAdventure specialise in this type of work so know exactly what they're doing

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Mar 2023 ==



Completely wrong, what RailAdventure use in this country is not what they own plus they have 17 years of expertise in stock movements throughout Europe

No, Freightliner use a single class 66/90 on their 196 and 197 moves, GBRf use a single class 47/56/69 on their 360 drags and ROG use a single class 37/57 on their scrap drags. Note that the use of four locomotives didn’t come up in that list, let alone the use of four 125mph express power cars.

RailAdventure have lots of options available that would be more suitable for this traffic that aren’t 20s, 37s or 47s, for example there are plenty of spare 57s and, for electric work, potentially 16 class 86s in decent condition.

The HST power cars were unnecessary.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Mar 2023 ==

Four former HST power cars wastefully and environmentally dubiously doing the work of ONE single loco,..madness.. yet the Govt. DfT can do nothing, unlike their short sightedly and costly instructions to GW and XC to withdraw HSTs prematurely.

Precisely, finally someone on this thread who realises that using four power cars, capable of 125mph, instead of one cheap locomotive, was the wrong option. However, I don’t agree with you about XC/GWR power cars, they need to go probably as, as you said, the HSTs aren’t environmentally friendly. Meanwhile, 86s, 90s, 91s and 92s sit in storage. Madness.

 

[43096]

Precisely, RailAdventure were able to buy the mini fleet of eight buffer fitted 43/4s

A slight correction… They bought six of the eight: the other two are NMT power cars.

 

[ExRes]

No, Freightliner use a single class 66/90 on their 196 and 197 moves, GBRf use a single class 47/56/69 on their 360 drags and ROG use a single class 37/57 on their scrap drags. Note that the use of four locomotives didn’t come up in that list, let alone the use of four 125mph express power cars.

RailAdventure have lots of options available that would be more suitable for this traffic that aren’t 20s, 37s or 47s, for example there are plenty of spare 57s and, for electric work, potentially 16 class 86s in decent condition.

The HST power cars were unnecessary.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Mar 2023 ==


Precisely, finally someone on this thread who realises that using four power cars, capable of 125mph, instead of one cheap locomotive, was the wrong option. However, I don’t agree with you about XC/GWR power cars, they need to go probably as, as you said, the HSTs aren’t environmentally friendly. Meanwhile, 86s, 90s, 91s and 92s sit in storage. Madness.

Last comment on this as I have better things to do

Freightliner have 66s and 90s, RailAdventure have no access to 66s and 90s
GBRf are about to replace their 47s because of the condition they are in, they will shortly have no 56s and are the only user of unproven 69s
ROG use environmentally unfriendly 37s only

RailAdventure use pairs of 43s under power not all four, the fact that they were 125mph has no bearing on their RA use, it's the fact they have buffers, were in good condition and were available

There are not 'plenty of spare 57s'

86s are not 'in decent condition', most of them needed major work before they were dumped in the open at Crewe, stored 90s belong to DBC and there is no reason to suppose they would make them available to anyone else, Europhoenix tried to use 91s for non passenger use and export them, there were no takers at all, 92s are highly specialised and neither DBC or GBRf have been able to use them effectively in the 30 years they've been around, no niche company is going to take something like them on and still have to use diesels for non electrified lines

There is only one option, tri-modes, and they require massive justification for an outlay of £4m to £5m per loco

 

[Sm5]

No, Freightliner use a single class 66/90 on their 196 and 197 moves, GBRf use a single class 47/56/69 on their 360 drags and ROG use a single class 37/57 on their scrap drags. Note that the use of four locomotives didn’t come up in that list, let alone the use of four 125mph express power cars.

RailAdventure have lots of options available that would be more suitable for this traffic that aren’t 20s, 37s or 47s, for example there are plenty of spare 57s and, for electric work, potentially 16 class 86s in decent condition.

The HST power cars were unnecessary.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Mar 2023 ==


Precisely, finally someone on this thread who realises that using four power cars, capable of 125mph, instead of one cheap locomotive, was the wrong option. However, I don’t agree with you about XC/GWR power cars, they need to go probably as, as you said, the HSTs aren’t environmentally friendly. Meanwhile, 86s, 90s, 91s and 92s sit in storage. Madness.

The 86s though arent much use on these moves, the point of delivery isnt with OHLE, so will require loco changes.

its a pity the 86’s couldnt be fitted with short range battery packs, or given they work in multiple convert 8 of them to become big Duracell batteries on wheels, and permanently couple it to the other 8, for charging under AC and powering when off AC.

 

[Class15]

Last comment on this as I have better things to do

Freightliner have 66s and 90s, RailAdventure have no access to 66s and 90s
GBRf are about to replace their 47s because of the condition they are in, they will shortly have no 56s and are the only user of unproven 69s
ROG use environmentally unfriendly 37s only

RailAdventure use pairs of 43s under power not all four, the fact that they were 125mph has no bearing on their RA use, it's the fact they have buffers, were in good condition and were available

There are not 'plenty of spare 57s'

86s are not 'in decent condition', most of them needed major work before they were dumped in the open at Crewe, stored 90s belong to DBC and there is no reason to suppose they would make them available to anyone else, Europhoenix tried to use 91s for non passenger use and export them, there were no takers at all, 92s are highly specialised and neither DBC or GBRf have been able to use them effectively in the 30 years they've been around, no niche company is going to take something like them on and still have to use diesels for non electrified lines

There is only one option, tri-modes, and they require massive justification for an outlay of £4m to £5m per loco

Better things to do? Like arguing for BA to use 747s between Heathrow and Stanstead?!

Really, mate? You think that it’s an effective use of 125mph passenger locos to haul a unit around Britain? There are 57s available, in my most recent loco guide about 1/4 of the fleet is stored, and the 86s seem in good condition judging from the many clips and photos of them at Basford Hall. There are 66s available, in fact GBRf are still bringing more in! Also DB seem to have quite a few spare.

But if RailAdventure do need to use 43s, what’s the point of using 4? I get that just 2 are powering, but surely it would be more economic to have 1 PC at each end? Well, to be honest, if you’re the kind of person running the railway, I may as well give up and start using buses instead.

 

[Domh245]

You think that it’s an effective use of 125mph passenger locos to haul a unit around Britain?

When the alternative 'use' was baked bean cans... Not as if they would have been hauling passenger services instead

There are 57s available, in my most recent loco guide about 1/4 of the fleet is stored, and the 86s seem in good condition judging from the many clips and photos of them at Basford Hall.

'stored' does not mean usable. 86s are (as noted) useless on these type of runs off of the electrified sections

There are 66s available, in fact GBRf are still bringing more in! Also DB seem to have quite a few spare.

GBRf are having to bring in locos from the continent because they're in such high demand. DB may have a few spare but don't appear to want to sell. Rail Adventure would be laughed out of the room if they go and ask "pretty please can we buy some locos and steal your traffic thanks"

But if RailAdventure do need to use 43s, what’s the point of using 4? I get that just 2 are powering, but surely it would be more economic to have 1 PC at each end?

The coupler on the 'flat' end of the powercar wouldn't be compatible with the barrier wagons, the two PCs back-to-back effectively give a single loco

 

[Class15]

When the alternative 'use' was baked bean cans... Not as if they would have been hauling passenger services instead

Well if it’s better financially then sure…

'stored' does not mean usable. 86s are (as noted) useless on these type of runs off of the electrified sections

GBRf brought back a 92 a while ago (92020?) from awful condition without bogies, I don’t think the 57s would be impossible to repair.

GBRf are having to bring in locos from the continent because they're in such high demand. DB may have a few spare but don't appear to want to sell. Rail Adventure would be laughed out of the room if they go and ask "pretty please can we buy some locos and steal your traffic thanks"

DB sold the 59s to Freightliner and 10 66s to GBRf?!

The coupler on the 'flat' end of the powercar wouldn't be compatible with the barrier wagons, the two PCs back-to-back effectively give a single loco

Ever heard of something called modifying couplers?

 

[Domh245]

GBRf brought back a 92 a while ago (92020?) from awful condition without bogies, I don’t think the 57s would be impossible to repair.

Technical possibility & financial viability are two very separate things

DB sold the 59s to Freightliner and 10 66s to GBRf?!

Yes they've sold quite a few through the years but haven't sold many recently and don't appear to be offering any either on the market. Sure if you bid high enough they'd probably consider it, but if you can buy something for little more than scrap value rather than paying over the odds..

Ever heard of something called modifying couplers?

Technical possibility & financial viability are two very separate things. It's order of magnitudes cheaper to simply couple two power cars back-to-back and haul one around dead than messing around with the rear end of the power car including removing the gangway

 

[Class15]

Technical possibility & financial viability are two very separate things

Ok, but I stand by my point about the 92.

Yes they've sold quite a few through the years but haven't sold many recently and don't appear to be offering any either on the market. Sure if you bid high enough they'd probably consider it, but if you can buy something for little more than scrap value rather than paying over the odds..

Well then why don’t DB sell when they could make a profit?

Technical possibility & financial viability are two very separate things. It's order of magnitudes cheaper to simply couple two power cars back-to-back and haul one around dead than messing around with the rear end of the power car including removing the gangway

I completely disagree. Buying a 125mph loco is surely more expensive than fitting a coupler?

 

[59CosG95]

I completely disagree. Buying a 125mph loco is surely more expensive than fitting a coupler?

Is this buying a new 125mph loco?
If so, that may be true, but RailAdventure almost certainly don't have any aspirations to run 125mph deliveries of new rolling stock that almost certainly won't be running that fast in regular service.
And as the recent experiments of modifying old stock to do new tricks have proven with the 769 project, you're better off letting sleeping dogs lie.

 

[Class15]

Is this buying a new 125mph loco?
If so, that may be true, but RailAdventure almost certainly don't have any aspirations to run 125mph deliveries of new rolling stock that almost certainly won't be running that fast in regular service.
And as the recent experiments of modifying old stock to do new tricks have proven with the 769 project, you're better off letting sleeping dogs lie.

No, I’m not saying they should be 125mph, all I’m saying is that the fact that they are built for 125mph must make them very expensive.

 

[Domh245]

Well then why don’t DB sell when they could make a profit?

Usually because whilst selling a loco will turn a profit for one year's accounts, it will negatively impact them going forward when they cannot win work because of a lack of locos (or so the theory goes)

No, I’m not saying they should be 125mph, all I’m saying is that the fact that they are built for 125mph must make them very expensive.

Expensive to buy, or to run? To buy they would have been the value of ~70t scrap steel + margin% - nobody else other than Booths/Sims would have been interested in buying them, so Rail Adventure merely had to offer more than the scrap value to get them.

To run, they might be more thirsty than some alternatives (though again, doubtful as they've relatively modern, sophisticated engines and are lightweight in comparison (at a little over half the weight of a 57 or 66, which also improves their track access charges) but if you were able to secure them very cheaply then you have to run them a lot, or have a very high difference in operating cost for it to balance out

 

[Class15]

Usually because whilst selling a loco will turn a profit for one year's accounts, it will negatively impact them going forward when they cannot win work because of a lack of locos (or so the theory goes)



Expensive to buy, or to run? To buy they would have been the value of ~70t scrap steel + margin% - nobody else other than Booths/Sims would have been interested in buying them, so Rail Adventure merely had to offer more than the scrap value to get them.

To run, they might be more thirsty than some alternatives (though again, doubtful as they've relatively modern, sophisticated engines and are lightweight in comparison (at a little over half the weight of a 57 or 66, which also improves their track access charges) but if you were able to secure them very cheaply then you have to run them a lot, or have a very high difference in operating cost for it to balance out

All fair points. I’m not a marketing expert, it just looked to me (and still does) that it’s a bit much for stock moves, but maybe I’m wrong.

 

[fgwrich]

Last comment on this as I have better things to do

Freightliner have 66s and 90s, RailAdventure have no access to 66s and 90s
GBRf are about to replace their 47s because of the condition they are in, they will shortly have no 56s and are the only user of unproven 69s
ROG use environmentally unfriendly 37s only

RailAdventure use pairs of 43s under power not all four, the fact that they were 125mph has no bearing on their RA use, it's the fact they have buffers, were in good condition and were available

There are not 'plenty of spare 57s'

86s are not 'in decent condition', most of them needed major work before they were dumped in the open at Crewe, stored 90s belong to DBC and there is no reason to suppose they would make them available to anyone else, Europhoenix tried to use 91s for non passenger use and export them, there were no takers at all, 92s are highly specialised and neither DBC or GBRf have been able to use them effectively in the 30 years they've been around, no niche company is going to take something like them on and still have to use diesels for non electrified lines

There is only one option, tri-modes, and they require massive justification for an outlay of £4m to £5m per loco

Agreed.

Also, as an FYI, unless my eyes have been deceiving me this week, yesterdays 701 drag saw GBRF use both a 56 and a 50 on its move to Eastleigh and returning the barriers back to Leicester. Both locos were running, both locos using fuel. Both engines being older and a lot less efficient than the MTU in the 43s. But ho hum.

 

[skyhigh]

All fair points. I’m not a marketing expert, it just looked to me (and still does) that it’s a bit much for stock moves, but maybe I’m wrong.

Don't forget that RailAdventure is a commercial company who exists to make a profit. If there was a better or cheaper option, why wouldn't they take it?

“Expertise”

This company owns about four locomotives and puts all of them on one stock move while GBRf, a company with more experience, uses one class 47 on the same moves.

The irony of someone with evidently little knowledge talking about the "expertise" of a commercial company is amazing.

I imagine they put a little more thought into it than "oh those locos in store look alright in photos, let's buy those"...

 

[Class15]

Don't forget that RailAdventure is a commercial company who exists to make a profit. If there was a better or cheaper option, why wouldn't they take it?

The irony of someone with evidently little knowledge talking about the "expertise" of a commercial company is amazing.

I imagine they put a little more thought into it than "oh those locos in store look alright in photos, let's buy those"...

I’m not claiming to have expertise, I was just comparing RailAdventure to GBRf (a bigger UK company) who use cheaper locos for duties they were actually designed for.

 

[DanNCL]

Saw them at Birmingham New Street today.

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:R04402/2023-03-30/detailed - Wembley to Doncaster Belmont

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:R04403/2023-03-31/detailed - Wembley to Tyne

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:R04400/2023-03-31/detailed - Tyne to Pelaw

That's what they are up to at the moment. Delivering 555005.

Just to note that as with previous 555 deliveries the Tyne - Pelaw move will actually continue beyond Pelaw onto Nexus infrastructure. The unit goes as far as Bill Quay where four Metrocars will attach at the opposite end to take it to Gosforth, the 43s will continue further along Nexus infrastructure to Hebburn Metro station as part of the shunt.

“Expertise”

This company owns about four locomotives and puts all of them on one stock move while GBRf, a company with more experience, uses one class 47 on the same moves.

RailAdventure have nineteen operational locomotives, four of which are for the UK (the four 43s). They have two decades of experience on stock moves in Continental Europe, using locomotives that in some cases are even older than the 43s - the oldest locomotive in the RailAdventure fleet is a German BR139 electric loco dating from 1959.

RailAdventure long had a policy of not acquiring locomotives built by any manufacturer that still exists, but in recent years they've acquired two Siemens built locos second hand, an ES64U4 electric loco (140 mph capable) and an ER20 diesel loco.

Meanwhile, 86s, 90s, 91s and 92s sit in storage.

All surviving 91s apart from 91117 (parts donor) are in service or in preservation. The last examples in storage recently made a one way trip to Newport Docks.

But if RailAdventure do need to use 43s, what’s the point of using 4? I get that just 2 are powering, but surely it would be more economic to have 1 PC at each end? Well, to be honest, if you’re the kind of person running the railway, I may as well give up and start using buses instead.

Four are only used on the Merseyrail deliveries as they have to reverse in a location where running around isn't possible. Two powercars run back to back to form one loco, the non-cabbed end can't couple to anything other than another power car or Mark 1/2/3 coaching stock. When GBRF did the Merseyrail deliveries they had a 66 on each end. A single 66 has the tractive effort of four 43s - a 43 has a maximum tractive effort of 80 kN, vs the 66 with a maximum tractive effort 409 kN, so one could argue that a single 66 is as wasteful as four 43s.

Only two powercars are used on the Tyne & Wear Metro deliveries, the shunting assistance for those is provided by Metrocars from the operational Metro passenger fleet. The shunt for that delivery is one of the more unusual ones this country has seen in recent years, but is necessary as it's the only way of delivering the 555s by rail.

DB sold the 59s to Freightliner and 10 66s to GBRf?!

Yes they've sold quite a few through the years but haven't sold many recently and don't appear to be offering any either on the market. Sure if you bid high enough they'd probably consider it, but if you can buy something for little more than scrap value rather than paying over the odds..

DB have a policy of not selling a lot of their surplus fleet to potential competitors. The 66s to GBRF were an exception. The 59s to Freightliner was a logical move as the contract work the 59s are used on also moved from DB to Freightliner at the same time. DB still own several 60s that haven't ran for two decades or more.

I completely disagree. Buying a 125mph loco is surely more expensive than fitting a coupler?

Not when the 125mph loco is only worth scrap value. Scrap value doesn't take into account the speed of the loco.

 

[fgwrich]

DB have a policy of not selling a lot of their surplus fleet to potential competitors. The 66s to GBRF were an exception. The 59s to Freightliner was a logical move as the contract work the 59s are used on also moved from DB to Freightliner at the same time. DB still own several 60s that haven't ran for two decades or more.

In addition to that, the main depot for the class is along the small quarry line at Merehead. So unless DB felt like moving the maintenance of their small fleet to Toton, it made sense for DB to sell them on to Freightliner, especially as DB’s work out of Westbury has considerably dwindled over the last few years. Of which, I’m surprised GB has kept onto its 59 (even if it is still OOU awaiting new tyres after Salisbury).

 

[SteelWeelApeal]

The other way to reduce the number of locos needed would be to convert a few mark 3s to barrier coaches. Presumably the reduced flexibility and associated costs were not worth it.

 

[DanNCL]

The other way to reduce the number of locos needed would be to convert a few mark 3s to barrier coaches. Presumably the reduced flexibility and associated costs were not worth it.

Easier to use German barrier wagons as they can stay with the unit the whole way from Switzerland. Converted Mark 3s could only be used north of London.