DRS don't generally swap the 88s off during RHTT season, they usually run them in pairs.......I'm not convinced DRS swapping to diesel haulage has anything to do with the price of electricity. I think they do it every autumn as the 88s aren't great on heavy intermodals when the rails are slippery.
Its possible FL are under this arrangement and have been caught out with the recent price surge.Under the terms of Network Rail’s contract with its electricity supplier, train operators that expect to use more than 450,000 kWh in a railway year are able to lock the energy commodity tariff for their forecast amount of consumption, if they wish . If they do not wish to lock their own prices then the default rate will be the month ahead rate and will be locked by Network Rail a few days before the start of each calendar month.
Theres a separate arrangement for charter operators which is basically same arrangement as freight operators although why there isn't just one rate for anyone using NR infrastructure is bizarre although looks very easy to fix if the political will is there.At a guess DB could well use enough electricity per year to qualify for the same fixed rates as the passenger operators, which would explain why they've not taken the same decision as Freightliner and DRS to switch to diesel working. In addition to the roughly the same number of intermodal flows that Freightliner have, DB also operate the Royal Mail trips with the 325s as well as the HS1 and Channel freight, so will by far be the Freight operator that uses the most electricity.
I'd be surprised if the GBRF/Caledonian Sleeper electricity usage amounts to 450,000 kWh a year, so I'm guessing they'll be paying a fortune right now!
LSL have also stopped using their electric fleet - all of their upcoming tours, including those running under the "Intercity" brand which the 86/87/90 fleet runs under, are now booked to be diesel hauled throughout.
The FOC have been highlighting that the current arrangements contain some problematic that have needed addressing for years and probably before wider scale electrification.Given the timing (COP26 is looming), might the action be a publicity stunt to try to force different energy tariffs or calculations?
'The market will decide'. And the market has. No interference with the market and bailing out lame ducks under this government None of that green cxxp here.OT, but it's exactly the same as these "green tariffs"
Hull trains use bimode 802s so in theory could run 100% on diesel.Hull Trains would be in a similar position
Indeed it must and given the movement by multiple operators there must be big numbers.Given the additional servicing costs of diesel engines it must take some serious economic anomalies to make dragging your own generator along cheaper in the short term. Where a change of locomotive can be avoided, such as ex-Felixstowe, it is going to be easier to justify. Equally if you were to consider the medium term benefit of fleet standardisation.
But to rock up at Daventry and find it cheaper to take the diesel to Mossend than the electric, that would take some distortion.
Unless of course, as has been hinted, there is an agenda at play here.
There are a number of 90s parked up in Mossend, but hidden behind a line of 325s.
Meanwhile, road transport doesn't pay anywhere near its true costs for the provision and operation of the highway infrastructure
and aviation is subsidised to the tune of roughly £7BN through aviation fuel not incurring either a tax nor VAT.
There is a highly competitive market in electricity, unlike water for example or even rail travel between many city pairs.This is just another example of the cack-eyed way transport is structured in this country.
Critical national infrastructure like the railways being drastically affected by the vagries of the privatised UK power generation cabbal and energy markets, while also being forced to cover it's own operating costs more and more while also dealing with endless political interference and Whitehall ineptitude.
Meanwhile, road transport doesn't pay anywhere near its true costs for the provision and operation of the highway infrastructure, and aviation is subsidised to the tune of roughly £7BN through aviation fuel not incurring either a tax nor VAT.
The playing field at the very least needs levelling, if not actually being tipped in favour of rail transport, given its obvious economic and environmental advantages over other modes.
The private car pays for the roads, not freight transport, which does most of the damage.Road transport pays a lot, lot more than the true costs for the provision and operation of the highway infrastructure.
Road transport pays a lot, lot more than the true costs for the provision and operation of the highway infrastructure.
Surely they'll also be using up their hedge quicker than they were planning, so they'll run out of that nice cheap 40p fuel and have to switch to 70p pretty soon (if I understand the way that fuel hedges work, which do tend to make my head spin)To set a few things straight.
Freight Operators (and TOCs for that matter) routinely hedge their diesel requirements for a year or so in advance. Freightliner will still be paying c40-50p a litre until their hedge expires, compared to around 70p a litre on the spot market.
Most passenger TOCs benefit from long term fixed price deals for traction electricity via the NR deal with EDF, and are thus protected. However some FOCs don’t ave fixed price arrangements for reasons I don’t profess to understand, but likely to be of their own choosing. They are therefore buying traction electricity at spot rates, which is currently 4 times what it was a year ago.
Figure raised in tax minus figure spent on infrastructure but that covers all road transport and not just road freight.How do you know?
Indeed, the figures are all so open to argument about what is or isn't and should or shouldn't be included, that I don't think anyone can simply state that the "true costs" are paid for in full by road users. And if you want to consider the marginal cost of heavy freight then everything becomes even less clear.Figure raised in tax minus figure spent on infrastructure but that covers all road transport and not just road freight.
What the various taxes of road transport don’t brilliantly cover are the negative externalities such as the cost of supporting and treating direct and indirect deaths, injuries and illness resulting from road transport.
All car drivers support subsidising other road users not to use roads.The private car pays for the roads, not freight transport, which does most of the damage.
Ask the private motorist if he would like to see some of his subsidy diverted from HGVs to railfreight instead and you may be surprised.
How do you know?
Err, no it doesn't - 70% of Network Rail's revenue comes from Government 'Network Grants' - see https://www.networkrail.co.uk/who-we-are/how-we-work/how-were-governed-and-managed/how-were-funded/Research by the Freight Transport Association in 2016 (admittedly biased) concluded:
Govt (central and local) spends £4.7bn a year maintaining roads.
Taxes levied on motorists raised £33bn.
Taxes on HGV raised £4.4bn.
The fundamental problem is that the national rail network appears to cost about the same to sustain as the road network.
In 2019 Network Rail spent £1.8bn on maintenance and £2.9bn on renewals.
While road users pay for their own time and vehicles, all of this spending comes out of ticket and freight revenue.