Class 88 UKDual & EuroDual

[Peter Sarf]

I thought 92s were mixed traffic also, having been built with intent to use them on the Nightstar trains that never happened and more-recently being used on the under-wires parts of the Scottish sleeper operation. Also, Wikipedia states a 92 has a top speed of 87mph; not quite the 110mph of a class 90 but still faster than the heavy-freight class 60s which only do 60mph according to Wikipedia.

Good to know that the 88s are on their way, now how about a commitment to a rolling programme of electrification (a slow one, since budget pressures mean it can't be done quickly, but nonetheless continuity of work for an electrification team)?

I think 92s being intended for NightStar and used on domestic sleeper work is not quite the same as faster daytime passenger trains. The 92s do have a rather high ETH index to supply trains with though.

 

[D6975]

If we are going by definition of what was intended when built, then the Class 91 is also a mixed traffic locomotive.

But we aren't, and that isn't what sunbird24 meant.

91s were never even intended to be mixed traffic.
Express passenger by day, sleepers by night was what they were intended to do.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Plus the fact a 92 has more power than a 88.

Aren't the 92s in effect 2 locos in one body (for redundancy in the tunnel)?

 

[TimboM]

Aren't the 92s in effect 2 locos in one body (for redundancy in the tunnel)?

Sounds like something out of a horror movie

I believe 92s have a lot of their systems duplicated for tunnel redundancy reasons, but don't think it goes as far as being two complete locos inside.

Back to the original 'performance comparison' question, I think the more pertinent question is how it performs against the ideal spec of what they're intended to be used for.

I very much doubt they will have the power (or ETS supply) of a 92 - but then if DRS wanted something with the spec of a 92, they could've probably bought, well, some of the 92s DB Cargo have rusting in Crewe IEMD.

Likewise, the 88s are not intended to haul passenger coaches at 140mph, so won't match up to a 91 'performance' in this respect - but then that's not what they're for.

However, an 88 has infinitely better performance than a 90/91/92 when there's no overhead wires (or 3rd rail) available...!

Comes down to what is (or was) the intended use of the Class 88s.

 

[Topgun333]

So closest like for like intended use is with a 90?

 

[Bobcp]

A possible contender for the transportation of the Class 88's to Workington has now docked at Sagunto.
The vessel has its own on board cranes and is named 'Eemslift Nelli'

 

[Bobcp]

-----

 

[TimboM]

So closest like for like intended use is with a 90?

I'd reckon so. Will be interesting to see how the 88s match up to the 25+ year old 90s, which themselves were an upgraded version of the 40+ year old 87s.

 

[Sunbird24]

A possible contender for the transportation of the Class 88's to Workington has now docked at Sagunto.
The vessel has its own on board cranes and is named 'Eemslift Nelli'

That vessel arrived yesterday lunchtime and is berthed near the 88's but they are too far away for the cranes which are on the other side of the ship, and resting on wooden cradles so will need another mobile crane but one was still not available last night. I will check when I go back later today. Link to 3 of yesterdays pictures here https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=oa.1262701973819396&type=1 I will post the other pictures later. Hopefully more today.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

That vessel arrived yesterday lunchtime and is berthed near the 88's but they are too far away for the cranes which are on the other side of the ship, and resting on wooden cradles so will need another mobile crane but one was still not available last night. I will check when I go back later today. Link to 3 of yesterdays pictures here https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=oa.1262701973819396&type=1 I will post the other pictures later. Hopefully more today.

That link doesn't work, either the content at that link has been deleted or set to private

 

[Sunbird24]

That link doesn't work, either the content at that link has been deleted or set to private

I'll check it when I get back home, its on a facebook site which I have no control over the privacy settings so I'l move it to where I have control and send a new link tonight.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Eemslift Nelli has set sail for Workington. Current ETA 28/02/17.

 

[Sunbird24]

The Eemslift Nelli has left Sagunto en route to Workington at 16 knots with 88001 Revolution, 88003 Genesis, 88004 Pandora, 88005 Minerva & 88008 Ariadne on board. Scheduled arrival at Workington is 1200 on 28th February.
Back at Albuixech are 88006 Juno, 88007, 88009 & 88010 Aurora. No nameplates on the other two yet but watch out for Electra and Diana. Several new 68's have appeared but only 68027 is identifiable so far.
Pictures have been added here: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/...046.1073741997.1192973669&type=1&l=624579ee6e

 

[Roast Veg]

Am I right in assuming the new 68s are being built without the vossloh logo in the front panel?

 

[D6975]

Am I right in assuming the new 68s are being built without the vossloh logo in the front panel?

..and in TPX livery??

 

[Sunbird24]

..and in TPX livery??

They are being painted in DRS blue at the moment.
Two will get TPE vynils about November this year for driver training. The rest will get them when they are transferred in 2018. Plans could still change.
No Vossloh logos on the ends, Stadler plates on the sides and bogies. Initially all will be working for DRS.

 

[Peter Sarf]

They are being painted in DRS blue at the moment.
Two will get TPE vynils about November this year for driver training. The rest will get them when they are transferred in 2018. Plans could still change.
No Vossloh logos on the ends, Stadler plates on the sides and bogies. Initially all will be working for DRS.

In fact I do not think there seems to be any indication which 68s or 88s will be used specifically for TPE. As regards the 68s I assume it is not necessarily the newest ones. It might be any of the non-Chiltern 68s I suppose ?. As regards 88s - I am not sure if any 88s are to be used by TPE or am I forgetting something .

 

[43096]

In fact I do not think there seems to be any indication which 68s or 88s will be used specifically for TPE. As regards the 68s I assume it is not necessarily the newest ones. It might be any of the non-Chiltern 68s I suppose ?. As regards 88s - I am not sure if any 88s are to be used by TPE or am I forgetting something .

No 88s for TPE. Precisely what DRS will use the 88s on is another question entirely....

 

[Sunbird24]

No 88s for TPE. Precisely what DRS will use the 88s on is another question entirely....

DRS themselves have stated that "they will be used on WCML intermodal services and other trains which they run mainly under the wires but which also have routes away from the wires" such as some nuclear waste trains. They have an 1800 litre fuel tank for these sections such as the Cumbria coast line and Wembley to Dungeness. Also likely on the Crewe to Carlisle and Carlisle to Shap turns.

 

[Sunbird24]

The ship has been delayed by a westward deviation from its course presumably due to bad weather and now appears several hours behind schedule. ETA 2030 around low tide so may have to wait.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

DRS themselves have stated that "they will be used on WCML intermodal services and other trains which they run mainly under the wires but which also have routes away from the wires" such as some nuclear waste trains. They have an 1800 litre fuel tank for these sections such as the Cumbria coast line and Wembley to Dungeness. Also likely on the Crewe to Carlisle and Carlisle to Shap turns.

You hardly need a new 4MW electric loco to haul the featherweight nuclear waste trains, whatever its bi-mode capability.

 

[furnessvale]

You hardly need a new 4MW electric loco to haul the featherweight nuclear waste trains, whatever its bi-mode capability.

True, but you are hardly going to build a smaller one that would be no use for anything else.

What is more pertinent, is the fact that DRS have lost some of the core intermodal traffic these locos were purchased to serve, meaning they now have to redeploy them.

 

[TimboM]

You hardly need a new 4MW electric loco to haul the featherweight nuclear waste trains, whatever its bi-mode capability.

No - they'll probably need 2 of them!

(think they're all double-headed aren't they for 'safety' reasons)

 

[Rhydgaled]

No - they'll probably need 2 of them!

(think they're all double-headed aren't they for 'safety' reasons)

Isn't the second loco just a spare so the flasks aren't left as a sitting duck if one loco fails? If so, presumably a single 88 could work them with an older loco dead-in-train to take over if the 88 fails, the two locos don't need to be able to control each other (I think I've seen photos of a 66 working a flask train with a BR-era loco, they don't have compatible multiple-working systems do they?).

 

[TimboM]

Isn't the second loco just a spare so the flasks aren't left as a sitting duck if one loco fails? If so, presumably a single 88 could work them with an older loco dead-in-train to take over if the 88 fails, the two locos don't need to be able to control each other (I think I've seen photos of a 66 working a flask train with a BR-era loco, they don't have compatible multiple-working systems do they?).

I'm pretty sure you're correct on all counts. The second loco is definitely "insurance" and I fully expect included in the rules/regs around transporting nuclear flasks (and after all it was why DRS was set up by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority in the first place).

I wonder if having the back-up diesel engine would count as sufficient "insurance" - I'm guessing not as other things (e.g. control systems) could fail on the 88 and you'd still have a problem.

As you rightly say, they use 66s on the flasks from time to time, so don't think they'd be too worried about inappropriate horsepower.

 

[CosherB]

88s seem to be perfect for flask traffic...!

 

[vasidae]

Eemslift Nelli due into Workington 22:00 tonight (tues)

 

[Domh245]

I wonder if having the back-up diesel engine would count as sufficient "insurance" - I'm guessing not as other things (e.g. control systems) could fail on the 88 and you'd still have a problem.

No. Not only for the reason that you said, but whilst not running under the wires (eg everywhere south of Shepherds Bush if on a Dungeness run), it'd only have one engine.

 

[furnessvale]

No. Not only for the reason that you said, but whilst not running under the wires (eg everywhere south of Shepherds Bush if on a Dungeness run), it'd only have one engine.

Not so. When not under the wires it would have a full diesel loco plus the 88 with its own smaller diesel engine, still two locos.

 

[Domh245]

Not so. When not under the wires it would have a full diesel loco plus the 88 with its own smaller diesel engine, still two locos.

Ah, I see, I forgot to read the context of the post. Using an 88 as the "insurance" locomotive in conjunction with some other loco should be fine, I'd assumed that is was referring to using just an 88