Are the class 88's the last locomotives we will see built?

[themiller]

I think it was Talbot in Germany that came up with a container-carrying DMU some years ago, IIRC some even found their way to the UK for track maintenance work. There's definately a niche market for that sort of stuff but traditional freight trains are going to be with us for a long time yet.

Windhoff built the original Cargo Sprinter but after early use it was stored. One appeared in Switzerland where the non-powered bit was paired with a Re420 with the unpowered end being used in much the same way as a DVT is over here. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CargoSprinter I've been told that the engines on our MPVs are a nightmare to work on as, unlike DMUs, there's a lot of structural steelwork restricting access.

 

[Photohunter71]

I'm pleased to read that the general consensus is that there will be future locomotives with albeit alternative/multiple power sources. I'm happy to have been proven a bit too pessimistic with this topic. As you know, I am a fervent supporter of freight being transported en masse by rail to hubs, where from there, road distribution can connect the last part of the journey (from hub to supermarket etc).
Interesting to read about the shunters. It seems there isn't much of a requirement for them these days, as I have witnessed their decline due to fixed formations or other methods of marshalling, not to mention the decline of marshalling yards specifically up here in Scotland.

 

[mushroomchow]

OK, had a mare with the Hoovers quote. I always did wonder why I could never find stock sounds of their "old" engines online.

Point still stands that the concept of rebuilding trains as opposed to new units is as old as the railways themselves. I was trying to refer to the "modern traction" era, but I could just as easily go back to the various modifications to the boilers, wheel arrangements and power output of steam locomotives as good examples of railways making use of what they already had, especially in the days of wartime thrift and austerity - an interesting comparison can be made with these uncertain financial times, I suppose?

No
Why do you think there might have been re engineering of some of the class 73's rather than a new build?

Because A) it was cheaper than a new loco, B) the locos were available and C) it resulted in a train more than capable of doing a job. With point A being the primary concern, of course, which is the reason retrofitting is gaining momentum - far less financial risk to TOCs and ROSCOs from rebuilding mothballed stock than buying brand new trains.

 

[DarloRich]

Because A) it was cheaper than a new loco, B) the locos were available and C) it resulted in a train more than capable of doing a job. With point A being the primary concern, of course, which is the reason retrofitting is gaining momentum - far less financial risk to TOCs and ROSCOs from rebuilding mothballed stock than buying brand new trains.

Indeed - although the small numbers need really count against a new build. It becomes prohibitive. You also need a customer for your rebuild. I am not confident the 56 idea will find a customer when there are 66's going spare.

 

[Cowley]

OK, had a mare with the Hoovers quote. I always did wonder why I could never find stock sounds of their "old" engines online.

The 50s were heavily refurbished in the late 70s/early 80s but retained their original engines. I think that maybe the engines had a set of rings removed from each cylinder at the time, though I can’t remember why (scoring maybe?).

 

[mpthomson]

Because they need very little power while at the stations?

Why would freight engines (which is realistically what future builds are likely to be for) be in stood in stations, other than occasionally if held at a signal?

 

[pdeaves]

Why would freight engines (which is realistically what future builds are likely to be for) be in stood in stations, other than occasionally if held at a signal?

Charters!