West Highland 37s - THE END?

[yorkie]

So, Jamie Chaz and Alex, who should foot the rather large bill?

As for the passengers would rather see a 67, only enthusiasts would be bothered by the loco and it would actually mean a reduction in enthusiasts travelling if it went to 67 haulage. The average passenger would travel regardless.

 

[bunnahabhain]

So that means that there will be more average passengers because there wont be as many enthusiasts filling up the gaps, good for the railways cause it'll bring more money in overall.

Anyway, Class 37's have a rather large bill themselves, more so than is required in maintaining the fairly new and large fleet of Class 67's.

 

[joy54]

I don't know if you've ever been on the Caledonian Sleeper Jamie but 2 days ago there was only 3 people on the Fort William sleeper going southbound. So I don't think there is an issue with space.

 

[AlexS]

Who should foot the bill? EWS, ScotRail and Network Rail.

EWS because they want to run the locomotives, ScotRail because they specified the contract for the service and Network Rail because it's their infrastructure and they should knuckle up to the responsibilities if they want a more modern railway. It's a few metal signs knocked into the ground. It's not exactly a bank breaker.

 

[bunnahabhain]

I don't know if you've ever been on the Caledonian Sleeper Jamie but 2 days ago there was only 3 people on the Fort William sleeper going southbound. So I don't think there is an issue with space.

Well then, it should be caped, not worth the money running it.

 

[joy54]

Sorry I meant in the seated bit btw, forgot to add that in berths may of been more. But certainly not very busy.

 

[Techniquest]

the thing is though, you cant have 37s on there forever, they are indeed getting old, remember noting lasts forever, i would expect to have a car and keep it till 2050, nor can you with a 37

I'm going to be harsh here and please don't take this personally, but that is an irrelevant ramble that doesn't actually address any of the real issues. Sorry.

I could say 67s won't last forever, either. It's not a case of making something last "forever", it's a case of what's viable, what works, what is economical and what is good value for money. And unless a lot of money is spent on upgrading the infrastructure (in particular some weak bridges) then I can't see how 67 haulage can be viable. And if the line is to be upgraded, where does that money come from and how can it be financially justified?

First of all, heart-of-wessex's point, interpreted so if I'm wrong James feel free to correct me, is that there are a good few members expecting EWS to keep a 40-ish year loco class running without problems, etc. Then when they decide to bring in their more powerful, usually more reliable locos (67s) in (to be honest, I can see why. I'd be making a similar decision too), they bad-mouth EWS and moan they should keep 37s on it.

Granted, we'd LOVE that. But these beasts are getting rather old, very nearly retirement age. EWS have a 30-strong fleet of 67s doing very little, with plenty of power to run the service. They just need NR to fix the line up first.

What the basic point is, we shouldn't expect 37s to carry on for long, it's unrealistic and impossible. Like heart-of-wessex says, we'd not expect cars to last for 50 years, why should 37s be any different? Which is why I've replied including yorkie's reply, which opens with saying that the post was irrelevant. Hardly so. So many people here have had the attitude and posts that sound and read like '37s are great, they'll never die, 67s suck, EWS are bad and wrong to replace 37s'. heart-of-wessex made some point of this, to call this irrelevant is looking blind into a wall.

The way I'm looking at it, if I was in charge solely of deciding what to do regarding what locos to run on the Fort William sleeper, I'd have basically two options for the diesel part of the route:

1) 37 from Fort William until Network Rail get their teams up the line to replace the track, laying the way for faster, more powerful locomotives (67s now, Goodness knows what in the future) to be used on the line.

2) 37s indefinately, not bothering Network Rail at all and leaving the track as it is, waiting for the mass locomotive failures and no way out of the problem for months on end.

My choice? Get on the phone to Network Rail.

Don't get me wrong, if this was MY choice, I'd ensure 37 farewell runs were operated prior to the 67 hand-over date. Things would be done properly, the 37s would have a proper send-off. But the basic point is, we can't expect 37s to live on forever, we need to make changes now before we have huge problems. As for who would pay, well that would be passed onto the financial department, who would pass it onto Network Rail, who'd be offered to have their late-running engineering works payments struck off if they paid the extra for 67 running and stuff.

I hope I've made both heart-of-wessex and my points here. My view is NOT up for change or discussion.

 

[Met Driver]

My view is NOT up for change or discussion.

Let me make one thing VERY clear.

If your 'view' is not up for discussion then I suggest that you do not voice it here. If anyone disagrees with what you have to say, they are perfectly entitled to voice that disagreement here, as long as it is done in an appropriate manner.

 

[AlexS]

Actually, I think Julian is more pointing out that no matter what is said, he won't change his mind.

In terms of this discussion, I feel Julian's view is perfectly acceptable.



I can't understand why people don't understand the business sense behind using a brand new asset that isn't doing much over a 40 year old one that has been worked to death over the course of it's life.

 

[Met Driver]

Actually, I think Julian is more pointing out that no matter what is said, he won't change his mind.

Then perhaps he should have phrased his last paragraph differently. Julian clearly stated that his view is not up for discussion...

I'm not taking sides in this debate, I just want to make sure that people are not put off voicing their opinion due to the manner in which others voice theirs.

 

[AlexS]

He might have a point though - it is rather annoying at times to have others continually try to change your outlook on things, it's unlikely to happen.

 

[heart-of-wessex]

Yes what i was saying FGWFan, just shorter :P

means less enthusiasts, so you hate 67s so that means we all hate 67s you mean? we all like different things, you dont know if theres a 67 fan out there, me? id go on a 67 to FW, i done a 67 H-O to Inverness, not bad i must say!!!

 

[AlexS]

I don't have a problem with 67s. I think they were rather nice looking lit up orange at nice on the parcel trains by the station lights.

 

[Met Driver]

He might have a point though - it is rather annoying at times to have others continually try to change your outlook on things, it's unlikely to happen.

I accept that. However, I think it would be easier to accept Julian's opinion if he rounded it off with a little less hostility.

 

[AlexS]

Fairy duff matey

 

[joy54]

I can't understand why people don't understand the business sense behind using a brand new asset that isn't doing much over a 40 year old one that has been worked to death over the course of it's life.

Alex is business sense using a loco that goes slower and costs more in access charges??

 

[Guinness]

Alex is business sense using a loco that goes slower and costs more in access charges??

Class 37/4
---------------

Weight: 107 tonnes
Power: 1,750hp
Max Speed: 80mph

Class 67
---------------

Weight: 90 tonnes
Power: 2,980hp
Max Speed: 125mph (Limited to 110mph)

Source: The Railway Centre

Joy, how is the 67 slower? Also, how does it cost more in Track Access Charges. I was under the impression that the heavier the Train, the higher the cost but that doesn't seem to fit under this example.

 

[joy54]

A Class 67 has Bo-Bo formation wheels- 4 wheels whereas a 37 has Co-Co formation wheels- 6 wheels. This means there is more weight per wheel therefore there are higher access charges, and this increase in weight per wheel means on the WHL they have to go alot slower.

 

[AlexS]

Class 37/4 is a fair bit slower than a 67. And at the end of the day, yes - the track access charge increases would be merrily covered by the fact that the ageing equipment in the 37/4 isn't having to be maintained.

And at the end of the day, 37/4s are down to scrap value now. 67s are still worth over a million quid each. Of course it makes sense for EWS to use and maintain the 67s over the 37/4s.

 

[joy54]

The only place the 67s may be able to go faster is on the journey between Westerton and Edinburgh, as thats on the Glasgow- Edinburgh mainline, but with the timings on the WHL and having to work round the other portions coming into Edinburgh this would make no difference at all to the overall journey.

 

[AlexS]

But the fact remains that as an asset, the 67s are far more valuable than the 37/4s, and if EWS choose out of the two which should be kept in good condition and work more trains towards that goal, surely they are correct in choosing the 67s.

 

[joy54]

Are 67s cleared for all lines the 37s are, I think not, so if EWS are to keep freights going on lines where 67s can't go they will need to keep the 37s.

 

[AlexS]

By now, most of them. There might be literally one or two individual jobs in Scotland that a shed or a tug or a skip can't work, but for the rest (for example all the little Cornish branches) sheds have all been passed.

 

[yorkie]

So that means that there will be more average passengers because there wont be as many enthusiasts filling up the gaps, good for the railways cause it'll bring more money in overall.

Have you been on this train? any idea on the loadings? It's only really busy during the holidays, and a very significant proportion of passengers are enthusiasts, particularly seated. If you go off-peak there are plenty of seats.

A reduction in numbers of enthusiasts travelling will simply mean unfilled berths & seats, and loss of revenue. I fail to see how that can be a good thing.

Anyway, Class 37's have a rather large bill themselves, more so than is required in maintaining the fairly new and large fleet of Class 67's.

No, they are much cheaper to run than 67s, due to
* lower track access charges
* lower leasing costs (though EWS are so desperate for 67s to be used they are reportedly offering 67s at the same price as 37s, but that only hides the true figures and you can bet they'd increase it after a while!)
* lower fuel costs
* shorter journey time (due to speed restrictions for the 67s), and as they say 'time is money'

Who should foot the bill? EWS, ScotRail and Network Rail.

EWS because they want to run the locomotives, ScotRail because they specified the contract for the service and Network Rail because it's their infrastructure and they should knuckle up to the responsibilities if they want a more modern railway. It's a few metal signs knocked into the ground. It's not exactly a bank breaker.

EWS - absolutely.

Scotrail - No, not at all. Why should they pay more for a slower service?!

NR - why? The line is maintained, and signed, to a standard that is suitable for the service. If EWS go against that standard, that's their issue and should be resolved at their expense.

If EWS want to use more track damaging locos, they should pay! Why should the railway be upgraded just because they can't get their act together?

At the end of the day it's the passengers who will pay, sadly.

I don't know if you've ever been on the Caledonian Sleeper Jamie but 2 days ago there was only 3 people on the Fort William sleeper going southbound. So I don't think there is an issue with space.

Well then, it should be caped, not worth the money running it.

Yes as Joy54 said, that only referred to seated. Anyway, why is it that some people want the service to become so expensive it's unviable and then have an excuse to cancel it?

Granted, we'd LOVE that. But these beasts are getting rather old, very nearly retirement age. EWS have a 30-strong fleet of 67s doing very little, with plenty of power to run the service. They just need NR to fix the line up first.

Yeah well they (EWS) can pay for it then!

What the basic point is, we shouldn't expect 37s to carry on for long, it's unrealistic and impossible. Like heart-of-wessex says, we'd not expect cars to last for 50 years, why should 37s be any different? Which is why I've replied including yorkie's reply, which opens with saying that the post was irrelevant. Hardly so. So many people here have had the attitude and posts that sound and read like '37s are great, they'll never die, 67s suck, EWS are bad and wrong to replace 37s'. heart-of-wessex made some point of this, to call this irrelevant is looking blind into a wall.

Erm... okay...

The way I'm looking at it, if I was in charge solely of deciding what to do regarding what locos to run on the Fort William sleeper, I'd have basically two options for the diesel part of the route:

1) 37 from Fort William until Network Rail get their teams up the line to replace the track, laying the way for faster, more powerful locomotives (67s now, Goodness knows what in the future) to be used on the line.

Faster? Hang on, the 67s will be slower due to speed limitations over weak bridges!

2) 37s indefinately, not bothering Network Rail at all and leaving the track as it is, waiting for the mass locomotive failures and no way out of the problem for months on end.

But why replace something that is reliable now, with something that is totally unsuitable?

My choice? Get on the phone to Network Rail.

But NR can't justify spending such sums on this lightly-used line.

Don't get me wrong, if this was MY choice, I'd ensure 37 farewell runs were operated prior to the 67 hand-over date. Things would be done properly, the 37s would have a proper send-off. But the basic point is, we can't expect 37s to live on forever, we need to make changes now before we have huge problems. As for who would pay, well that would be passed onto the financial department, who would pass it onto Network Rail, who'd be offered to have their late-running engineering works payments struck off if they paid the extra for 67 running and stuff.

I hope I've made both heart-of-wessex and my points here. My view is NOT up for change or discussion.

That's fine, you're entitled to your view, but I do not believe the costs should be passed on to NR.

NR, quite rightly, charge access charges based on how much wear & tear the locos cost, so they will charge EWS extra for that.

But if EWS want to put a totally unsuitable loco on this journey, that weighs too much to traverse bridges at the current line speeds, then EWS have to pay for the strengthening of those bridges and/or differential speed restriction signs.

But even if EWS do pay for the signs, the sleeper will have to be slower than at present. But, that causes problems. The ex-Mallaig train cannot leave any earlier or it may lose the ferry connection. I guess they'll make the connections tighter, but it's already tight enough as it is.

I can't understand why people don't understand the business sense behind using a brand new asset that isn't doing much over a 40 year old one that has been worked to death over the course of it's life.

I can't understand why people don't understand the business sense behind using a reliable, efficient and working asset over one that was designed to run at over 3 times the speed, operating trains of completely different characterstics over a line that has weak bridges and would need to be upgraded at a cost that is difficult to justify and could put the future of the service in doubt, along with increasing fuel consumption (the costs of which is only going to rise further), higher access charges and slower journey times. Just my view though!

Don't get me wrong, if the service was going to be cheaper to run, and faster (ie. the total opposite to reality!), thus ensuring the viability of the service, then I'd declare it a step forward, however sad it would be to see the 37s go. But that's simply not the case, and let's not pretend it is. I don't know if those who suggest cheaper costs and shorter journey times with 67s are confused, or have not done any research or if they're winding us up, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they were unaware of the facts.

If people admit that the service is going to cost more, and be slower, but still claim it's for the best, then that's their choice and we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

IMO, the line is a magnificient piece of engineering, it's a miracle that the route was built. It's vitally important for the economy of the West Highlands, it deserves to survive, but it will only survive if costs are kept to reasonable levels, it cannot exist at any cost.

 

[yorkie]

BTW there's no point in having this discussion, as certain people are not even reading what's been posted (and have admitted that to me), along with having done no research, and then arguing on points that they don't understand, for example claiming 67s will be faster on this route. I'm sorry, but how can we have a sensible discussion with anyone who makes such a claim?

 

[richa2002]

I think the saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" (I think that's wat it is! ) comes in here.

 

[bunnahabhain]

A Class 67 has Bo-Bo formation wheels- 4 wheels whereas a 37 has Co-Co formation wheels- 6 wheels.

Bo-Bo = 2 Powered Axles on 2 Seperate Bogies
Co-Co = 3 Powered Axles on 2 Seperate Bogies

It doesnt refer to the number of wheels it has.

Bi-Bi = 4 Wheels
Tri-Tri = 6 Wheels

 

[Guinness]

What are Network Rail actually paying for any way?

 

[AlexS]

Some signposts.

 

[joy54]

Sorry yes it was number of axles not wheels, got confused but I knew the weight was more spread out so it was cheaper to run 37s.