Fortsätt till huvudinnehåll

Railway economics of boom and bust

Teignmouth sea wall

When Britain's railways were privatised the freight services were sold to a US-owned company which ran them under the name EWS, which recently sold them to the German group DB-Shenker. Hundreds of new diesel locomotives like this one were ordered from General Motors at around £1.5 million each, whilst old but serviceable locomotives such as the class 58, dating from the early 1980s, were sold to Spain, France and the Netherlands. At the time, it struck me as odd to replace almost the entire fleet with new locomotives because over the lifetime of such machines, there is likely to be at least one recession when they will be without work for several years. It is a situation where it makes sense to have a mixed fleet so that the older units, which have long since been bought and paid for, can be laid up when the recession comes.

Now that the recession is upon us, the magazine Rail reports that half the fleet is standing idle. In any case, the locomotives have been grossly under-used, spending long periods attached to engineering trains (above), doing nothing with the engines left running.

The diesel locomotives have performed well but had EWS ordered a fleet of steam locomotives instead, the economics would probably have worked out better. A production run of steam locomotives for heavy freight, similar to the one below, would cost less than half that of an equivalent fleet of diesels. Of course the steam locomotives need an extra crew and their thermal efficiency is lower, but if running on liquid fuel such as light oil, the burners can be turned off when the locomotive is standing out of use. And if there is no work at all for them, it isn't thermal efficiency that is the issue but the cost of the finance needed to purchase them in the first place.

D DB 41 360 Altenbeken 01-07-2007

Kommentarer

Populära inlägg i den här bloggen

Importing people to sustain demand

I got involved in a discussion with a Youtuber called “Philosophy all along”. This was in connection with criticism of Trump’s policy of deporting illegal migrants, which he argued would be bad for the economy as it would reduce demand. This implies that there is a need to import people to sustain demand. There is no obvious reason why a population should not be able to consume everything that the same population produces. If it can not, then something else is going on. It is a basic principle that wages are the least that workers will accept to do a job. Wages are a share of the value added by workers through their wages. The remainder is distributed as economic rent, after government has taken its cut in taxes. Monopoly profit is a temporary surplus that after a delay gets absorbed into economic rent. Land values in Silicon Valley are an example of this; it's like a gold rush. The miners get little out of it. Rent and tax syphon purchasing power away from those who produce the g...

The dreadfulness of British governance

I wrote to my MP on two entirely separate issues recently. The first was to do with the replacement for the Inter City 125 train, which at £2.6 million per vehicle, is twice as expensive as it ought to be. The second concerned the benefits of a switch from business rate and Council Tax to a tax based on site values. In both cases, the replies were full of spurious, unsubstantiated assertions and completely flawed arguments. This is typical. You will not get an iota of sense from the government on any area of public policy at all - finance, economics, trade and employment, agriculture, housing, health, transport, energy. All junk. If you write to your MP you will invariably receive answers that are an insult to your intelligence, no matter what subject you are writing about. Of course they cannot understand statistics. They are innumerate. Whitehall is staffed with idiots with a high IQ. Look at their IT projects. And mind your purse, they will have that too.

How much more will the British tolerate?

The British are phlegmatic, tolerant and slow to rouse. Thus there was no great reaction after the terrorist attack in July 2005. The murder of Lee Rigby created a sense of outrage, but nothing more, since it appeared to be an isolated incident. Two serious incidents within a fortnight are another matter. Since the first major terrorist incident in 2001, authority has tried to persuade the public that Islam is a religion of peace, that these were isolated events, or the actions of deranged "lone wolves", having nothing to do with Islam, or to reassure that the chances of being killed in a terrorist attack were infinitesimally small. These assurances are are beginning to wear thin. They no longer convince. If government does not act effectively, people will take the law into their own hands. What, however, would effective action look like? What sort of effective action would not amount to rough justice for a lot of innocent people? Given the difficulties of keeping large n...