Skoda Exportation

[Peter Mugridge]

Logic would suggest that DB should offer the surplus 90s for sale to Freightliner to allow them to replace their remaining pairs of 86s for the overall economic good of the railway, but of course since Freightliner are a competitor such common sense would never be allowed would it?


*wonders if the ORR are reading this*

 

[90019]

True words, but I can't believe it would make that much difference to a loco with over 6,000 horepower on tap.

It's not so much the power as the aerodynamic stability amongst other factors, like those mentioned above.
A 91 is perfectly capable of doing 125 running slab end first, you just don't really want it to.

 

[Vulcan]

It's not so much the power as the aerodynamic stability amongst other factors, like those mentioned above.
A 91 is perfectly capable of doing 125 running slab end first, you just don't really want it to.

I still can't see why not, especially as they were designed to be run in normal service facing backwards.

Anyway, this is off topic really.

 

[Crossforth]

Before we go back on topic

I still can't see why not, especially as they were designed to be run in normal service facing backwards.

91s, correct me if I'm wrong, were built with the intention to run passenger during the day and freight at night, hence the inside cab.

If there was no inside cab, they wouldn't have been able to run freight.

And then the whole idea was scrapped anyway

 

[Vulcan]

I thought it was sleepers on the WCML, but I might be wrong.

I recently found some old railway magazines from the late 80s when the 91s were being designed, the idea of a loco with different cabs at each end didn't seem to go down very well with enthusiasts back then.

 

[ainsworth74]

They were intended for both is my understanding however the 90s ended up monopolising those jobs, so the 91s were surplus to requirements (for those workings obviously not on the ECML!).

 

[jopsuk]

As well as the blunt end being not as aerodynamic (and really, every little helps), I'd guess another reason for being limited to 110mph when hauling a mk4 set blunt end first is the "interesting" aerodynamics that would occur:
A: between loco and leading coach, if simply loco reversed (so sloping end facing blunt coach)
or
B: if loco has run round set and is could to dvt, between the pointy ends and also at the "exposed" blunt end of the train.

On the other hand, SNCF run loco-hauled Corail trains, with rather blunt locos and no aerodynamic trailer at the rear end, at up to 200km/h

 

[rail-britain]

I agree it seems unusual to export such locos, when there appears to be demand for them
As far as I am aware these locos are in "poor" condition (several sitting at Crewe Electric) and in need of major overhaul

By doing this arrangement of selling them, this then allows overhauls of their locos at a reduced rate (as it is then part of a larger order)
These monies can then be used to invest in other things

Ironically, I do agree that DBS could invest this money themselves and retain these locos
However not much is to be saved in swapping between a Class 60 and Class 90

As for the use of Class 90s between Glasgow / Edinburgh and Birmingham
I agree this makes sense
However this would effectively need Mark 3 coaches so as to utilise 110mph capability, rather than "lower specification" Mark 2 coaches
In effect this would be a step back

It would be favourable to use Mark 2 coaches on "high demand" EMU services, to release EMUs
However the overall costs of this are typically higher than those of a EMU

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Apparently the 10 are to be drawn from both the mothballed and the active examples, with some mothballed examples returning to UK service in place of exported active examples.

I'd still say they should keep them in this country; there is far too much diesel under the wires freight running, and if Freightliner find it does not cause a time penalty to stick a 66 on a 90 for the short section across the NLL, then surely DB could do the same for the short sections in and out of the yards at each end of the WCML, for example.

 

[LE Greys]

As well as the blunt end being not as aerodynamic (and really, every little helps), I'd guess another reason for being limited to 110mph when hauling a mk4 set blunt end first is the "interesting" aerodynamics that would occur:
A: between loco and leading coach, if simply loco reversed (so sloping end facing blunt coach)
or
B: if loco has run round set and is could to dvt, between the pointy ends and also at the "exposed" blunt end of the train.

On the other hand, SNCF run loco-hauled Corail trains, with rather blunt locos and no aerodynamic trailer at the rear end, at up to 200km/h

I've never travelled behind a slab-end 91, even in the snow last year. They usually run round to avoid lightweight DVTs derailing if they hit a drift (not that such things are usual on the ECML). However, I did once travel in the 'blind end' of a reverse-formed set. The loco was coupled 'nose-to-tail' with the DVT. There seemed to be no effect on performance whatsoever, but peering through the tiny window provided a unique view of the Welwyn tunnels disappearing backwards at 115 mph.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'd still say they should keep them in this country; there is far too much diesel under the wires freight running, and if Freightliner find it does not cause a time penalty to stick a 66 on a 90 for the short section across the NLL, then surely DB could do the same for the short sections in and out of the yards at each end of the WCML, for example.

Considering the lack of use many 92s had for a very long time, the 90s were clearly under-used. 86s may have been a problem because of their high gearing, although they did try to solve this with the 86/5. Still, we get a lot of diesel-hauled freight on the ECML as well. This is partly because a lot goes via Lincoln rather than Grantham, but it must be possible to handle the London-Peterborough section using 90s, which would almost certainly help with timekeeping. Really, the best solution would be an a.c. electro-diesel, but we have to work with what we have.

 

[33056]

Never heard class 90s refered to as Skodas before, why is that?
I wish my skoda was a class 90 though, would be a lot more fun.

When the 90s were new, they were not very reliable - neither were Skoda cars at that time so the 90s were quickly dubbed "Skodas". Does anybody remember that the Mk3 DVTs gained the nickname of Skoda Estates when they came out?

BTW, Skoda really did make electric locos for use in what was then Czechoslovakia

 

[jopsuk]

They still do make rolling stock in The Czech Republic