Are we straying into issues with older stock where it is not being maintained properly? And into design issues?
Obviously, where possible, everything that is practical and is reasonable should be done to avoid running engines unnecessarily. The first step is for the maintenance (including fixing of faults) to be performed to a good standard, and not just the bare minimum.
Then good practice needs to be spread, and at the same time poor habits questioned. In some cases, it’s ‘because we’ve always done it that way’ and there may have been good reasons in the past. But are these reasons still valid now? If the questions are not asked, you won’t get the answers.
Where there is still a good reason for running engines while a train is stabled / stopped for any significant amount of time, is there any technical improvements (and cost will come in here) that could be carried out? In other words, can the running time be reduced by use of automation or other methods.
At some former BR loco diesel depots, on cold winter days/nights, a member of staff would walk around and in turn, start up and run each loco/DMU for a short time, then shut them down. I don’t know the details, but this crude cycling kept the engines warm enough to prevent problems from the cold, but it saved having to run them continuously. It saved money in terms of less fuel used. But of course, you did have to pay for that member of staff to be on duty.
Back to the current day, and a different example. Every day, diesel engines are run purely to provide lighting and heating while train(s)/vehicle(s) are stationary for a significant time. This is because the trains/vehicles are occupied by staff and they require the facilities. This is not only trains, but also some road vehicles. How much better it would be if ALL the railway companies (and their contractors) spent some time and effort investigating more energy efficient alternatives and improvements. Such as shore supplies. And for the companies to work with the staff, rather than just ‘putting plans on paper’. As whatever ideas are suggested have to be practical and easy to use.
I’m sure that if the railways did put the effort in, substantial improvements could be made, which would both save money on the fuel bills and reduce the amount of emissions.
Where there are bi-mode or tri-mode trains that spend a significant amount of time in stations, or sidings, away from OHL or third rail territory, if the long term plan is to electrify the lines in these areas in the future, serious consideration should be given to providing the electrification infrastructure in these locations ahead of the main scheme. Then when a train arrives at the station/siding, it can switch to electric power and shut down all of the diesel engines.
