European Railroad Discussion > Colas - Back to the future

It is almost 12 months since Colas started operating a twice weekly train of steel coil from the steelworks of South Wales to the port of Tilbury, east of London, from where it is exported. In that time the motive power they've used has gone through three distinct phases.

At first they used one of their small class of class 66s, as here on the 15th March when 66846 was in charge of the Saturday return empties, unusually on the North London Line.

During the year as their business grew the 66s were in demand to power Network Rail engineering trains so Colas went into the secondhand market picking up 37s, 56s and 60s. To power the steel trains in the absence of 66s they started using, firstly, a single 56 but then a pair of the venerable locomotives, as insurance against them sitting down on the road. The week after the previous shot (22nd March) 56302 - originally refurbished for Fastline - was rostered, much to the delight of most rose tinted spectacle wearing railfans. Here it is passing Ormond Road, N19 on the Barking to Gospel Oak line. It was running very late owing to crew illness which required a relief driver to be found.

The 56s either singly or in pairs were becoming quite a common sight throughout the spring and summer, 56113 and 078 were making a meal of the climb towards Crouch Hill Tunnel as they crossed Harringay Park Junction on May 10th.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/21/14 14:18 by 86235.

---

---

---

And now fast forward to Saturday 6th September and yesterday and now the 6V62 is in the capable hands of 60087, one of 10 60s which Colas have bought off DBS and are having refurbished. They are ideally suited to this sort of working, having been designed to haul heavy trains at moderate speed (max 60 mph). 60087 has a seemingly strange name, CLIC-Sargent, which is a cancer research charity focused on children formed by the amalgamation of Sargent Cancer Care for Children and CLIC - Cancer and Leukaemia in Childhood.

The first shot shows 60087 approaching the Hornsey Road, N19 bridge whilst the second shows it passing underneath Hornsey Road! On both days the weather was rather dull.

It is, by and large, quite a decent sized train by our standards. But there are occasions, as here on June 21st passing Undy in South Wales, when it was much shorter, on this occasion only nine wagons. 66850 David J Maidment is in charge.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/14 02:20 by 86235.

---

---

---

Nifty!

Very interesting variety on some real heavy railroading, thank you Nick!

Is there a specific reason why steel trains are so short or is this for steel production reasons? Maybe the couplers would not hold more weight?

McKey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe the couplers would not hold more weight?

No, the couplers will manage 3000 tonnes, these steel trains top out at 1800-2000 tonnes. It will have more to do with the length of sidings

Interesting, looks like both France and U.K. have these old short sidings still left.

I think most mainland European countries generally have short-ish sidings, except on specific routes.

This would mean that project Marathon (Americans please don't laugh) 1500 meter / 1 mile long trains are actually a lot further away than it looks like from the Nordic perspective. This would also mean that Nordic and Baltic countries are well ahead of Central Europe in this aspect.

McKey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This would also mean that Nordic and Baltic countries are
> well ahead of Central Europe in this aspect.

My experience in Sweden in 2010 was that freight trains were not noticeably longer than those found elsewhere in Euope or here - intermodal trains of 30-40 platforms and wagonload and unit trains of comparable lengths to ours. I accept that the iron ore trains in the far north are longer, but so they are on selective routes elsewhere - our Mendip Rail 'jumbo' trains for instance 40+ wagons or the iron ore trains from Rotterdam to the Ruhr. The 5' gauge lines of Eastern Europe are definitely longer, but again not by much and certainly not by North American standards. Those iron ore trains I saw from Ukraine to US Steel in Kosice in Slovakia back in April were only 40+ wagons. I must admit I was expecting longer.

---

---

---

McKey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This would mean that project Marathon (Americans
> please don't laugh) 1500 meter / 1 mile long
> trains are actually a lot further away than it
> looks like from the Nordic perspective. This would
> also mean that Nordic and Baltic countries are
> well ahead of Central Europe in this aspect.

To say that any countries are ahead or behind others in this respect requires some very simplistic assumptions, along the lines of "long trains good, short trains bad".

While all other things being equal, longer trains would be appear to be more productive, and indeed they often are.

However, in any economic evaluation many trade-offs have to be considered. The question of optimal train lengths depends on many factors, most obvious being the need for rapid acceleration and high cruising speeds to operate on tracks whose primary purpose is to carry high-speed very frequent passenger trains. The UK West Coast main Line carries over 40% of all UK freight on top of 15 passenger trains per hour in each direction at speeds of between between 100 and 125mph. Clearly the infrastructure investment in track and signalling has to reflect the overall usage of a route. Also, the nature of cargo, and the price and availability of land varies massively between countries. Impressive as the heavy haul iron ore routes on Scandinavia and Australia may be, they have no real place in the UK.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/14 10:57 by spflow.

I think you must know better than me since you've traveled a lot more. This means the trains I've seen for example in Sweden have been considerably longer than you describe. But maybe the long ones are exceptions. Anyways here are a few few samples from around Nordic and Estonia. I think I should develop more of these "formidable" train pictures being around a kilometer long, but I'll have to put Innotrans pictures first online.

You might notice that all of these locomotives differ from "average" (Rc loco): they are much more powerful or run in double so maybe the reason for Green Cargo running short trains is their locomotion? Which would shed some light why they are loosing every year in battle against just about all the private or subsidized companies in Nordic.

---

---

---

These are from Estonia. Sorry, some I posted already before. Here the locomotion is always "adequate" allowing very long trains now running on European standard tracks despite the Russian gauge. Many Eesti Raudtee trains are as long as these...and often pulled with a single C36-7ai!

---

---

---

The longer trains are more productive on longer stretches, aren't they. That is what we see in U.S. I see longer trains in Northern part of Europe as a part replacement to ships now that EU sanctions to Baltic sea ships are coming into effect starting next year. Obviously countries like Sweden that can run long trains (because of infra has already been readied for this all the way to some point in Germany) over land connections have easier time exporting their goods to Central Europe than for example Finland that traditionally relies on rubber wheels alone (reason being the incompatible rail gauge with most all trade partners in Europe).

Look at the U.S. solutions, they are 1000 years ahead of Europe in freight railroading.

spflow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> McKey Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> To say that any countries are ahead or behind
> others in this respect requires some very
> simplistic assumptions, along the lines of "long
> trains good, short trains bad".
>
> While all other things being equal, longer trains
> would be appear to be more productive, and indeed
> they often are.

Whoops, I meant 100 years. I know U.S. people are talented in making their economy and railroads work but hopefully we only lag behind 100 years, not 1000 ;)

McKey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This means the trains I've
> seen for example in Sweden have been considerably
> longer than you describe. But maybe the long ones
> are exceptions. Anyways here are a few few samples
> from around Nordic and Estonia.

TBH I can't see from those pictures how long those trains actually are. As I said on the Gothenburg to Stockholm mainline west of Hallsberg the intermodal trains I saw were all 35 to 40 platforms, many articulated to save space. The VR trains, which I think is carrying minerals of some kind, most probably are longer as they are among the heaviest European freight service IIRC an article in TR - Europe a year or two back. But spflow's point is very valid, you are not comparing apples with apples. In most of Europe freight trains play second fiddle to passenger and as the latter's speeds have increased so has the need to either keep freight trains out of the way or to speed them up. So on our West Coast mainline, the intermodal trains are timed at 75 mph. To accelerate to that speed quickly and, just as importantly, to be able to stop in an environment where the freight jostles for space with maybe 8 125 mph trains each way every hour, and an equal number of 90-110 mph local/semi fast trains making frequent stops, means that short-ish, light-ish trains remain the norm.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/14 12:26 by 86235.

---

I hear this rapid acceleration point every time there is discussion on how backward the European freight railroading in general is. And of course I very much agree that with severe capacity constraints the lines can't accommodate truly advanced freight trains in a _short_ run - a situation changing as more lines are being built at least where the big trains are seen as an answer to more efficient transportation. You might look at the figures here alone on how Sweden is modernizing its networks. I think these is quite impressive! Despite the fact that this only shows short term projects, not the dozen or so bigger rail projects for the future.

http://www.trafikverket.se/Privat/Projekt/

Nick, believe me that even though you can't see the ends of the trains they are extremely long in Sweden, Estonia and Finland. I noticed the same thing as you that the ends don't sow in pictures, so I suppose I should put more formidable looking trains online next :)

Maybe the West coast lines run shorter trains? And even in U.S. the local freights are shorter.

86235 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> McKey Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This means the trains I've
> > seen for example in Sweden have been
> considerably
> > longer than you describe. But maybe the long
> ones
> > are exceptions. Anyways here are a few few
> samples
> > from around Nordic and Estonia.
>
> TBH I can't see from those pictures how long those
> trains actually are. As I said on the Gothenburg
> to Stockholm mainline west of Hallsberg the
> intermodal trains I saw were all 35 to 40
> platforms, many articulated to save space. The VR
> trains, which I think is carrying minerals of some
> kind, most probably are longer as they are among
> the heaviest European freight service IIRC an
> article in TR - Europe a year or two back. But
> spflow's point is very valid, you are not
> comparing apples with apples. In most of Europe
> freight trains play second fiddle to passenger and
> as the latter's speeds have increased so has the
> need to either keep freight trains out of the way
> or to speed them up. So on our West Coast
> mainline, the intermodal trains are timed at 75
> mph. To accelerate to that speed quickly and, just
> as importantly, to be able to stop in an
> environment where the freight jostles for space
> with maybe 8 125 mph trains each way every hour,
> and an equal number of 90-110 mph local/semi fast
> trains making frequent stops, means that
> short-ish, light-ish trains remain the norm.

McKey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I hear this rapid acceleration point every time
> there is discussion on how backward the European
> freight railroading in general is. And of course I
> very much agree that with severe capacity
> constraints the lines can't accommodate truly
> advanced freight trains in a _short_ run - a
> situation changing as more lines are being built
> at least where the big trains are seen as an
> answer to more efficient transportation. You might
> look at the figures here alone on how Sweden is
> modernizing its networks. I think these is quite
> impressive! Despite the fact that this only shows
> short term projects, not the dozen or so bigger
> rail projects for the future.
>

I think there is a very basic point being missed! The UK has over ten times the population density of either Sweden or the US and over 20 times that of Finland.
New lines just can't get built without massive public and private costs. What constitutes "advanced freight trains" just isn't the same thing in different environments. My electric Smart car only has a range of 100 miles, but it is far and away the most advanced vehicle possible for my urban driving around London. I guess if I lived in Kiruna or Minot or some such place it would be the most inappropriate car imaginable!

Yes, U.K. differs in many respects from the rest of the Europe, I'm talking about generic European perspective, especially the developed Northern part of it. So lets not think U.K. alone, every country is entitled to do their own decisions as long as European Union allows them to.

You might not notice this, but I'm one of the few who admire many aspects of U.K. railroading on this side of the channel ;)

McKey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, U.K. differs in many respects from the rest
> of the Europe, I'm talking about generic European
> perspective, especially the developed Northern
> part of it.

No, not that different. If you look at the pictures I took in Hungary and Slovakia earlier this year, or in Spain in 2011 and 2012, or in Austria in 2009 you will see trains of relatively modest size when compared with North America. And by modest size I am mean no more than 50 cars. There certainly is an aspiration to run longer trains in Europe but longer within the overall constraints that have already been spelt out. I am something of an anorak when it comes to counting freight cars :-) and I've never seen trains of North American proportions anywhere on the standard gauge of Western Europe, with the exception of some specific flows, which I've already mentioned.

The first picture was taken in Hungary in March, it's the Budapest BILK to Hamburg intermodal, some 23 two platform flats, carrying a maximum of 46 45' boxes.

Back in Spain in 2011 a steel train runs down the Pajares line, again not very large

And then from an ex BR class 58 on the regular Veendam to Rotterdam ACTS intermodal, again some 36 platforms



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/14 12:11 by 86235.

---

---

---

McKey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, U.K. differs in many respects from the rest
> of the Europe, I'm talking about generic European
> perspective, especially the developed Northern
> part of it. So lets not think U.K. alone, every
> country is entitled to do their own decisions as
> long as European Union allows them to.
>
> You might not notice this, but I'm one of the few
> who admire many aspects of U.K. railroading on
> this side of the channel ;)

No, the UK is very similar to most of Western Europe, ie Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Holland, Spain etc. These collectively form the overwhelming majority of European economic activity, bur have very different economic geographies from either North America or Eastern/Northern Europe and Russia.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/14 14:43 by spflow.