Freightliner 86s

[90sWereBetter]

How long realistically do we see Freightliner using 86s on its intermodal services? With the class almost 50 years of age, and only about 14 or so left in traffic, I imagine they're well into their twilight years, even if they're still reliable locos.

 

[GearJammer]

How long realistically do we see Freightliner using 86s on its intermodal services? With the class almost 50 years of age, and only about 14 or so left in traffic, I imagine they're well into their twilight years, even if they're still reliable locos.

Well why would you replace them if there still reliable?

 

[GB]

Well why would you replace them if there still reliable?

Probably because the older it gets, the more expensive it gets to maintain them to a reliable standard.

 

[GearJammer]

Probably because the older it gets, the more expensive it gets to maintain them to a reliable standard.

This is true, but i would have thought the cost in keeping them reliable would be the same as any other time in there past up to the point when parts become harder to find, so then i guess they will keep going untill Freightliner run out of parts to keep them going, it depends what parts they keep in stock i supose.

They can't be that hard to maintain or they would have been replaced by now.

 

[zn1]

nothing wrong with the class 86/5/6 fleet, solid dependable and easy to maintain locos, they put power to the rail with no problems, something for the freightliner jockeys to elaborate on, personally its good to see the old school still on their old stamping ground working hard, without issues and still looking good

 

[MK Tom]

Might've been nonsense, but I'm sure someone on here told me 2x86/6 gives the best power output per energy put in or something like that of anything in the FL fleet.

 

[dannyandy]

Doesn't look like there are any replacements on the horizon at the minute so must be pretty reliable...

 

[tadhatter]

Isn't part of the reason for their longevity the fact thst they are electrics?
Certainly that's a key argument for electrification; that the traction is easier and cheaper to maintain. If they werediesels my guess is that they would have been at Booths a long time ago!

 

[455driver]

They do the job very well indeed, it isnt broke so dont fix it!

I am surprised that no more were converted to 86/5 spec because 86501 is a very capable machine indeed even receiving expensive repairs a few years ago to (fire?) damage which would normally have resulted in withdrawal.

 

[Manchester77]

Isn't part of the reason for their longevity the fact thst they are electrics?
Certainly that's a key argument for electrification; that the traction is easier and cheaper to maintain. If they werediesels my guess is that they would have been at Booths a long time ago!

But there are 90s which are in store so if there was the need for electrics they'd have surely replaced them with newer 90s?

 

[455driver]

Newer is not always better!

An 86 is more sure footed than a 90 which spins up a bit to easily.

 

[Beveridges]

Those freights headed by 2x 86s are the most powerful domestic freight trains in the UK.

 

[fowler9]

Newer is not always better!

An 86 is more sure footed than a 90 which spins up a bit to easily.

I believe even the 87's loose traction quite easily. I did love them though. Can't really explain why, cool though. Ha ha.

 

[tadhatter]

But there are 90s which are in store so if there was the need for electrics they'd have surely replaced them with newer 90s?

But the opposite is also true in that if the 86s were knackered why not replace them with 90s - unless of course the 86s were a more capable machine! Actually I'm not sure that's opposite but I hope you know what I mean!

 

[Boothby97]

But there are 90s which are in store so if there was the need for electrics they'd have surely replaced them with newer 90s?

But those stored 90s are owned by a competitor, DB Schenker. They won't sell the 90s (especially to a competitor), so in theory Freightliner can't replace their 86s with stored 90s.

 

[Beveridges]

DRS and GB managed to get hold of some 92s, so in theory FL could have had them as well if they wanted to replace their 86s

 

[455driver]

BD decided to sell some knackered 92s that is how the others got them, up to now no 90s have been offered for sale so how are the others supposed to get hold of them?

 

[cj_1985]

DRS and GB managed to get hold of some 92s, so in theory FL could have had them as well if they wanted to replace their 86s

GBRf have access to class 92s as their parent group (Eurotunnel) bought their locos from SNCF who seem to have wanted rid of their share of the fleet, and then also purchased the remaining non EWS/DBS class 92s from Eurostar/LCR

As for how DRS managed to be able to work out a sub lease agreement with DBS is probably nothing short of a miracle, I would imagine they are paying quite a premium to get access to the locos... but that's just an opinion.

 

[captainbigun]

BD decided to sell some knackered 92s that is how the others got them, up to now no 90s have been offered for sale so how are the others supposed to get hold of them?

90s were tendered in 2011, but no one met the reserve.

 

[455driver]

90s were tendered in 2011, but no one met the reserve.

If they were serious about selling them there wouldnt have been a reserve as they would have wanted to clear them either for scrap or further use, as there was a (very high) reserve they were just wanting to see what the market would offer for them.

 

[Monty]

If FL were to make a conscious effort to replace their Class 86 fleet I would imagine they would prefer a new build option rather than paying over the odds for 90s and 92s. I'd sooner trust Frank Butcher than buy second hand off DBS.

 

[zn1]

i agree with you monty, but the having of assets not making money and rotting in yards isnt really making fiscal sense, the 90s will take a few quid to get going, the 92s a little more expensive to run, but a superior vehicle with power at rail, they are mad not to have these locos running and on hire out on short term lease to other tocs, or at very least lend them to museums for clean up and static exhibit, the 92's are too good to be sitting idle, as are the 90's, if no good here, use em overseas in europe....

 

[Monty]

i agree with you monty, but the having of assets not making money and rotting in yards isnt really making fiscal sense, the 90s will take a few quid to get going, the 92s a little more expensive to run, but a superior vehicle with power at rail, they are mad not to have these locos running and on hire out on short term lease to other tocs, or at very least lend them to museums for clean up and static exhibit, the 92's are too good to be sitting idle, as are the 90's, if no good here, use em overseas in europe....

It makes sense if you have a virtual monopoly on electric traction, keeping them stored may seem barmy to most but you deny your competitors access to them. I imagine DRS are paying through the nose for the the sub-lease of DBS's 92 and I'll imagine it'll stop as soon as the 88s enter service.

DBS have begun to send them abroad though, so I wonder if the ROSCO have told them to use them or loose them as I as a rolling stock leasing company would not be particularly happy about locos being kept in the open for years unused.

 

[HSTEd]

DBS is attempting to 'keep them out of enemy hands'.

They would scrap them before selling them to FL.

 

[Beveridges]

If DRS really are paying so much for 92s then surely they would go back to double headed 66s.


It's a pity freight has not seen growth like the passenger sector has. Otherwise theres no way you would have 90s, 92s in storage (or 58s & 60s for that matter as well).

 

[Monty]

I'd imagine it's still cheaper than using two diesels, but I bet DBS has gotten the better deal out of it.

 

[captainbigun]

If they were serious about selling them there wouldnt have been a reserve as they would have wanted to clear them either for scrap or further use, as there was a (very high) reserve they were just wanting to see what the market would offer for them.

They have a value on the books, that's the very minimum. They are answerable for their finances, they can't just flog assets at a loss.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If DRS really are paying so much for 92s then surely they would go back to double headed 66s.


It's a pity freight has not seen growth like the passenger sector has. Otherwise theres no way you would have 90s, 92s in storage (or 58s & 60s for that matter as well).

It's not just about cost. Look at the train, plastered down the side very clearly is a banner that says 'Less CO2'. Add to that the requirement to move the train to a path timed for a 92. Yes, 66s could give or take do this, but not without pumping out a crap load of CO2. Work the rest out, not hard.

Safe to say DRS are paying well for the hires from DBS.

 

[Freightmaster]

If DRS really are paying so much for 92s then surely they would go back to double headed 66s.

They need all their 66s these days for other work (and to allow
for maintenance/exams), so they can no longer afford the luxury
of having two 66s tied up seven days a week on one diagram.

Because of this, I presume they had no option but to pay whatever DB was asking!


MARK

 

[Beveridges]

They are paying the price now of handing back those 87s that they were once thinking of using!

 

[cjmillsnun]

It makes sense if you have a virtual monopoly on electric traction, keeping them stored may seem barmy to most but you deny your competitors access to them. I imagine DRS are paying through the nose for the the sub-lease of DBS's 92 and I'll imagine it'll stop as soon as the 88s enter service.

DBS have begun to send them abroad though, so I wonder if the ROSCO have told them to use them or loose them as I as a rolling stock leasing company would not be particularly happy about locos being kept in the open for years unused.

Do ROSCOs own freight locos? I thought they were owned by the FOCs