How Long Can Heritage Traction Keep On Going?

[al.currie93]

If I read this correctly, you are bemoaning the scrapping of things which are not yet life-expired because (among other things) the result is new resources being consumed in building replacements. What (I reckon) you are missing is the horrendous fuel consumption and emissions of locos built when noone cared about fuel availability or air quality. Ignoring the issue of running costs and reliability, is it morally wrong to get rid of polluting vehicles (rail, road, air) and invest in 'cleaner' ones? The Government's car scrappage scheme resulted in thousands of not-yet-life-expired-but-uneconomical-and-dirty cars being scrapped and replaced by a growing number of Greenline/hybrid/electric cars - was that also morally wrong? Especially when so much of a scrapped loco/car will be recycled in any case...

I hadn't forgotten fuel, don't worry, I was actually only considering the manufacturing resources and ignoring fuel consumption in that statement - I was wondering if someone would pull me on that! It's a valid statement definitely, as older engines are generally more fuel thirsty and less efficient. However this can be (almost) solved with things like new engines and motors and so on - that would hence be akin to putting a new engine in one of those cars instead of scrapping it, which would still use less resources than a new build.

Obviously there comes a point where a new build is undoubtedly better in every way, but repairing should be done as much as possible in my opinion.

 

[Bevan Price]

Only Voyagers and other Pendolinos, I believe - not sure anything else is capabale of hauling a Pendolino set

Class 47 have hauled Pendolinos, but not in passenger service, and as far as I know, only in the early days of Pendolinos. I passed one on the Chat Moss line quite a few years ago. I think they had some kind of drawbar adaptor

 

[Strathclyder]

Class 47 have hauled Pendolinos, but not in passenger service, and as far as I know, only in the early days of Pendolinos. I passed one on the Chat Moss line quite a few years ago. I think they had some kind of drawbar adaptor

A Voyager (220011) has been towed by a Freightliner 47 (47197) in the past (July 2005), due to no Virgin 57/3s being available.

Photo linked below (not mine):
http://www.hondawanderer.com/47197_Spetchley_2005.htm

 

[alexl92]

Whatever the impact of the car scheme, the balance of improved efficiency versus more resources being needed is quite different for cars than it is for trains. Cars tend to be used for a few hours each day for a decade or two before they're scrapped, whereas trains are going to be used or will be running almost all day, every day, for three decades or more. As a result, even a relatively minor improvement in efficiency or pollution levels would have a very huge impact over the life of the vehicle. On a similar note, the biggest business for Airbus and Boeing right now is replacing existing planes with similar models with new engine options and efficiency upgrades, since even a 10% reduction in fuel consumption has a massive impact upon the total amount of fuel needed to fly commercially over the lifetime of the plane.

It's worth bearing in mind though that aviation fuel is insanely expensive. So much so that the governments don't even bother trying to tax it - it would be counter-productive because it would just make it prohibitive.

It seemed to me at the time of the car scrappage scheme that it could be counter productive. There were plenty of cars scrapped instead of being sold on that were built in the mid-late 90s iirc. Now the people who would have bought those cars second hand will now keep their existing even older car going instead. That even older car is probably even less ecological. I would imagine the energy and carbon used to make a new car is quite significant.

The real reason for the car scrappage scheme was to keep car factories going during the recession. There are a lot of jobs at stake there. Nothing to do with ecology.

Watch out for the disposable world. I have just spent all day waiting for an engineer to visit and condemn our fridge. Its ten months old and after six months needed a new compressor. Now, four months on, it runs continuously and does not cool. How much electricity is that. Well he finally arrived at the end of the ten hour slot and spent five minutes putting gas back into it. I whinged and he said it will last for about nine months. So that is seven months after the one year guarantee finishes. He said 18 months life for a fridge is reasonable !. Are we heading for a disposable world or are we there already ?. Point is it can not be very ecological changing things so often. Someone elso on this thread pointed out the obsession with "new".

What is more ecologically beneficial. A fifty year old railway engine hauling freight or dozens of new lorries shifting the same freight ?.

If we want passenger trains to be more ecological then surely we should reduce the top speed of the services ?.

Such a shame. Nobody repairs a tv these days, they just replace. It's just stupid and wasteful.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Such a shame. Nobody repairs a tv these days, they just replace. It's just stupid and wasteful.

Apparently new flat screens do not last anywhere near as long as the old cathode ray tubes :cry:. The flat screens take up less room though I am afraid :roll:. But the old screens don't break when the tennis racket slips out of ones hand while playing with the Wii .

 

[cjmillsnun]

Only Voyagers and other Pendolinos, I believe - not sure anything else is capabale of hauling a Pendolino set

With the emergency coupling any loco can haul a Pendo. It'll convert Dellner to a screw coupler

 

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

The real reason for the car scrappage scheme was to keep car factories going during the recession. There are a lot of jobs at stake there. Nothing to do with ecology.

That is true, although reducing the number of older polluting vehicles to help the country towards its emissions reduction target was an intended by-product of the scheme.

What is more ecologically beneficial. A fifty year old railway engine hauling freight or dozens of new lorries shifting the same freight ?.

The former - but better still is new 'clean' locos hauling the same freight, while the old ones get re-used as razors and baked bean cans.

If we want passenger trains to be more ecological then surely we should reduce the top speed of the services ?.

I don't think any train of any sort can be ecological in the usual sense of the word! But slowing down rail services might actually make rail less environmentally friendly because many people would then choose to travel by road instead. At the moment, speed is the main reason why many people pay the extra money to go on a train...in fact, one of the hoped-for side-effects of HS2 is that people will be tempted away from the M40 (for Birmingham travellers) and internal flights (for the Manchester crowd), either of which will reduce overall emissions somewhat.

However this can be (almost) solved with things like new engines and motors and so on

But the consensus is that the Class 57 wasn't really worth all the effort. How well the re-built Class 73s fare remains to be seen, but that's a pretty small project (in terms of numbers of locos) and I'm not aware of another other similar projects brewing.

 

[NSEFAN]

Apparently new flat screens do not last anywhere near as long as the old cathode ray tubes . The flat screens take up less room though I am afraid . But the old screens don't break when the tennis racket slips out of ones hand while playing with the Wii .

Modern electronics is moving towards integrating everything into a single chip. This makes it much harder to repair things and it in many cases it's easier and more efficient just to recycle the whole unit. Planned obsolescence makes more money for the manufacturers as they have a steady income stream, although it does help technology to progress where it otherwise wouldn't. In some cases this is perhaps not necessary (do we really need internet-enabled fridges?), but in others it provides a motive for the technology to improve (look at how cheap computing power is now, would we have achieved this if we'd stuck with Win98 because it was "good enough"?)

With regards to heritage traction, I think one reason it survives is because of increasingly tough emissions regulations making modern trains expensive, whilst grandfather rights mean the 20s and 37s can carry on clagging. Of course, the cost of maintaining old locomotives eventually becomes too great and operators are forced to move to newer designs. Clearly there are enough spares for the old BR-era machines to keep running for now.

 

[HSTEd]

It's worth bearing in mind though that aviation fuel is insanely expensive. So much so that the governments don't even bother trying to tax it - it would be counter-productive because it would just make it prohibitive.

That might have been true when it was enormously heavily leaded avgas, but most aviation fuel is now rather cheap kerosene [Jet A].
It trades at something like fifty US cents per litre.

Its cheaper than diesel even as it doesn't have to meet ULS Diesel standards.

 

[al.currie93]

But the consensus is that the Class 57 wasn't really worth all the effort. How well the re-built Class 73s fare remains to be seen, but that's a pretty small project (in terms of numbers of locos) and I'm not aware of another other similar projects brewing.

But it still solved the problem of the old locomotives being thirsty and polluting, even if it was a lot of effort. Refurbishing old vehicles is probably always more effort than buying new ones - hence the throw away culture these days - and the most moral option probably isn't always (or even often) the most effortless.

 

[green howards]

Modern diesels are not actually that good on fuel - i was quite surprised. Emissions controls clean up emissions, but quite badly to the expense of fuel consumption. Also some designs are thermally and mechanically more efficient.

For instance a class 55 can move the same train the same distance for between 20 to 25% less fuel than a something similar age. The napier deltic engine has a better / lower specific fuel consumption as its thermally more efficient.

Look at the strategic rail authority report comparing hst (valent engined) to voyager - hst is 30% more fuel efficent for a seven coach train.

The hst comparison is even worse if you take into account track access charges and maintenance- hst £9.80 a mile to operate - voyager £24.40 a mile - no wonder ticket prices have gone up. These are prices from about 10 years ago.

I have no figures for class 67 - but I understand these are particulary poor on fuel even compared to older traction.

 

[dysonsphere]

It's worth bearing in mind though that aviation fuel is insanely expensive. So much so that the governments don't even bother trying to tax it - it would be counter-productive because it would just make it prohibitive.

I dont know where you got that from jetfuel in Jan was Euro 0.40 / Litre + delivery and theres no tax on it in Euorpe

 

[nottsnurse]

I dont know where you got that from jetfuel in Jan was Euro 0.40 / Litre + delivery and theres no tax on it in Euorpe

It's trading at approximately $75 (£47ish) a barrel (159 litres) at the moment.

 

[matacaster]

Oxymoron alert

Light blue touch paper. Stand well back

I remember travelling behind a two-tone 47 near heaton lodge junction many moons ago which was blue + oil-stain black. The result of the familiar piston out of bed problem.

 

[al.currie93]

Modern diesels are not actually that good on fuel - i was quite surprised. Emissions controls clean up emissions, but quite badly to the expense of fuel consumption. Also some designs are thermally and mechanically more efficient.

For instance a class 55 can move the same train the same distance for between 20 to 25% less fuel than a something similar age. The napier deltic engine has a better / lower specific fuel consumption as its thermally more efficient.

Look at the strategic rail authority report comparing hst (valent engined) to voyager - hst is 30% more fuel efficent for a seven coach train.

The hst comparison is even worse if you take into account track access charges and maintenance- hst £9.80 a mile to operate - voyager £24.40 a mile - no wonder ticket prices have gone up. These are prices from about 10 years ago.

I have no figures for class 67 - but I understand these are particulary poor on fuel even compared to older traction.

That's very interesting - thanks for posting that! Have you got any links for that information?

 

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Have you got any links for that information?

Apparently not! And the advent of stop/start technology will improve consumption on the modern types further.

 

[cjmillsnun]

It's trading at approximately $75 (£47ish) a barrel (159 litres) at the moment.

Currently £0.82/l at Wycombe (includes VAT)

http://www.wycombeairpark.co.uk/wycombe-air-park/facilities/fuel

 

[scarby]

In the latest Rail magazine it reports how Harry Needle is overhauling more 37s that have lain out of use for years, as well as some 31s I think, and that they are on the lookout for more locos.

So presumably with this sort of activity these classes will be active for many more years to come.

 

[alexl92]

What are the 31s for?

 

[Bletchleyite]

In the latest Rail magazine it reports how Harry Needle is overhauling more 37s that have lain out of use for years, as well as some 31s I think, and that they are on the lookout for more locos.

So presumably with this sort of activity these classes will be active for many more years to come.

I think a railway locomotive, as it's so expensive and built to be maintained, is more akin to a house than a car. So I'd say "as long as it's still economically viable to replace and repair bits", which if you look at Swiss electric locomotives as an example is a very long time.

MUs probably less so as there are passenger comfort reasons to replace them, or there comes a point when *all* components are outmoded.

 

[scarby]

What are the 31s for?

I'm really sorry, I didn't keep the paper after I read it so I can't quote what was written. But from memory I don't think anything was specified - it just seemed to be that the company was acquiring locos on the basis that they were confident they would be needed for contract work somewhere.

 

[Chris125]

What are the 31s for?

I'd imagine they may see use with Colas on NR test trains, continuing the use of the class on them.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I can see that old traction has less residual value so can be used sporadically without worrying about it having enough use over time. A newer 66 or 68 has to be fairly intensively used to justify the purchase/leasing costs. Thats assuming an old locomotive can be resurrected relatively cheaply.

I do agree that a second hand locomotive has a lot more use than a second hand car. Although I run around in a perfectly reliable 21 year old car it only cost £350 to buy. So perhaps cars would last longer if fashion did not dictate - they certainly do not rust like they used to. As for my house - well a newer one would have been built with a higher standard of foundation but it is still serviceable (fingers tightly crossed).

 

[richieb1971]

At some point all present locos will end up on the scrap heap, old or new.

Saving a few of each class is the best anyone can do. As for spare parts, I thought 3D printing had come such a long way that there is never going to be a shortage of any parts.

 

[Domh245]

You can only 3D print a part if you've got the drawings for it! You've also got to consider how the printer will print it - for example, if you are printing a gear, you've got to consider that the teeth may just shear off if you put too much force on them because of the layered way in which the 3d printer lays up the part. You could always use a printer to make a nylon copy to make an impression of the part in sand and then cast with that.

 

[GM228]

You can only 3D print a part if you've got the drawings for it! You've also got to consider how the printer will print it - for example, if you are printing a gear, you've got to consider that the teeth may just shear off if you put too much force on them because of the layered way in which the 3d printer lays up the part. You could always use a printer to make a nylon copy to make an impression of the part in sand and then cast with that.

That's a great suggestion re the moulding! Has 3D printing been used in anyway "railway" yet I wonder?

 

[Nym]

That's a great suggestion re the moulding! Has 3D printing been used in anyway "railway" yet I wonder?

Extensively for prototyping...

But steel and aly parts are made up by CNCing them into shape from block, billet or sheet materials, it's not a massively complicated job to make a new part.