Class 57s and 68s speculative drag use for Cross Country

[sprinterguy]

This is quite possibly the most bizarre sentence i have read on the forum. And i remember the guy who wanted to reopen the Port Road.

Though to be fair, not that I would advocate such a drastic change over twenty years down the line, what we now know and love to hate as the class 220 fleet was originally specified as four-car locomotive hauled sets with a single-ended class 67 loco at one end. The fuel consumption of 3.85 litres per mile for a class 220 (From this document here: https://www.ogab.co.uk/wp-content/u...t-Of-Reduced-Fuel-Consumption-On-Railways.pdf) would probably have been similar, based on this post (Number 6 on the thread) regarding TfW class 67-hauled sets from this very forum: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/how-far-on-a-tank-of-fuel.103693/#post-1861863

 

[yoyothehobo]

It would just have all the drawbacks of a loco hauled set (single point of failure etc...) with all the drawbacks of the Voyagers (poor space utilisation etc...)

A right frankesteins monster

 

[HamworthyGoods]

It would just have all the drawbacks of a loco hauled set (single point of failure etc...) with all the drawbacks of the Voyagers (poor space utilisation etc...)

A right frankesteins monster

Indeed, I’m really not quite sure what is trying to be achieved here!

 

[sprinterguy]

It would just have all the drawbacks of a loco hauled set (single point of failure etc...) with all the drawbacks of the Voyagers (poor space utilisation etc...)

A right frankesteins monster

Yep - One of the few positive features of Voyagers is their excellent reliability, assisted at least in part by the redundancy provided by having multiple engines in the consist.

 

[randyrippley]

How would a top & tail pair of class 57s or 68s hauling a Voyager set; with no Voyager engines running; and only one loco engine running, compare for fuel efficiency with anything between 4-10 Voyager engines running, as is the current situation?

If the loco-drag option would save fuel, do you think Cross Country should consider hiring 68s, or 57s to haul some Voyager sets, considering the cost of diesel now and that it seems Cross Country will be operating Voyagers for the forseeable future? I'm assuming both locos can couple up to Voyagers?

you seem not to realise that the class 57 engines are a 1980's refurb of 1960/70's construction of a 1930's basic design, which as a mechanically scavenged two-stroke is inherently inefficient, wasteful of fuel, and environmentally filthy. Only good thing you can say about them is that they are so simple, rugged, and overengineered that they're hard to break.
Typical American tractor engineering logic

 

[m0ffy]

XC would probably be better off looking at ways to shut down engines once at cruising speed where/if this is possible. I can’t see why you’d want to loco-haul a relatively modern, functional DMU.

 

[D365]

Problem is, that I don't think it would be very safe for the class 769 or 230s to try to be doing 125mph!

I do like how you immediately jump to the least important ’problem’ in something that is otherwise tounge-in-cheek humour!

Indeed, I’m really not quite sure what is trying to be achieved here!

Forum traffic

 

[Cowley]

@D365 - Damn right. This kind of stuff attracts new members.

 

[liamf656]

Forum traffic

And of course something entertaining to read through at just-gone midnight!

I don't need to reiterate that this thread has jumped from one crazy idea to another, but with the cost of such ideas you may as well start looking for a brand new fleet of bi-modes, which Crosscountry really needs in this day and age. Something a bit less likely in the near-future but also needed is a bit more electrification to coincide, starting with Birmingham to Leeds, but that's been mentioned plenty of times in the past, and it's slipping out of this thread's topic!