DRS Planning 10 X Mixed Traffic Locos

[furnessvale]

I don't think the new locos should have CAT engines. Rather they should buy British and go with the revised design of VP185 being pushed by MAN and featured in Modern Railway's July "Pan Up". Available in 12 and 18 cylinder variants.

Locos should have the best engine available no matter where it comes from. The 1955 modernisation plan forced BR to buy British and BR were saddled with the debt from which it never recovered.

I will only modify my stance when the UK road haulage industry is likewise forced to adopt a "buy British" policy.

 

[LOL The Irony]

I will only modify my stance when the UK road haulage industry is likewise forced to adopt a "buy British" policy.

I hope all they need is a DAF CF...

Locos should have the best engine available no matter where it comes from.

Agreed.

 

[northwichcat]

It is to haul the Mk4s, wherever they go... Not a wholly flippant reply. Actually from the article it sounds as if they want to take their old stuff out of service. I assume it will turn out to be more 68s, modified for the latest Euro-stage.

Some of the mk4s are going to the new Wales & Borders franchise for North Wales to South Wales services - there won't be enough electrics there to make them worthwhile. I guess EMT bidders will look at mk4s but until the winning bidder is announced we don't know if there might be a surprise - the winning Northern, TPE, Anglia, West Midlands and Wales & Borders bids have all contained surprises.

 

[squizzler]

Well everyone said the 195's wouldn't fit within the loading guage.


Would buying local allow them to be exempt to these emission standards?

The article in last month's MR suggests that MAN would be able to make them comply with emissions otherwise they would not be marketing the engines to the rail industry, nor would MR bother publishing the article. The engines themselves have been upgraded amounts other things with electronic fuel injection, and I guess the exhaust package can be tailored to suit.

MAN ES are very much "a German company with a factory in the UK"

So the engine itself remains a British product, the lump was originally designed here and it is still built in Colchester by British engineers.

 

[Bertie the bus]

I take that point but how often, really, is that an issue? How many absolute prohibitions are there? You cant design a fleet to cover the occasional requirement

You can and it will happen. The 88s were never going to be a big seller but they were designed and built. Unless Network Rail spends an incredible sum upgrading lines there will always need to be locos with a low RA and 1960s locos won't last forever no matter what you do to them.

 

[squizzler]

Locos should have the best engine available no matter where it comes from. The 1955 modernisation plan forced BR to buy British and BR were saddled with the debt from which it never recovered.

I will only modify my stance when the UK road haulage industry is likewise forced to adopt a "buy British" policy.

I would hazard a guess that the CAT engine is no better than the European MTU 4000 series or the VP185 designs, but cheaper due to mass production. Another high speed diesel engine choice might be the Cummins QSK95 as used in the Amtrak and Brightline Charger locomotives. I think this is the most powerful "high speed" rail diesel because the 16 cylinder Charger lump produces 4,400 hp!

 

[DarloRich]

You can and it will happen. The 88s were never going to be a big seller but they were designed and built. Unless Network Rail spends an incredible sum upgrading lines there will always need to be locos with a low RA and 1960s locos won't last forever no matter what you do to them.

I disagree. When you MoSCoW ( Must/Should/Could/Would have) the idea the suggestion of a small batch of RA3 locos doesn't stack up. I bet when looked at in detail the number of prohibitions and gauging issues are very few. There will be many locations that need special permission or special working arrangements but few absolute prohibitions.

I also doubt the business case delivers a return in a decent time frame. Your benefit of being able to serve the areas prohibited to bigger locos is eaten up with development costs and higher operations costs when used on "normal" services.

The scales tip suddenly if DRS have a contract that specifically requires smaller engines & that pays long term,

 

[43096]

I disagree. When you MoSCoW ( Must/Should/Could/Would have) the idea the suggestion of a small batch of RA3 locos doesn't stack up. I bet when looked at in detail the number of prohibitions and gauging issues are very few. There will be many locations that need special permission or special working arrangements but few absolute prohibitions.

I also doubt the business case delivers a return in a decent time frame. Your benefit of being able to serve the areas prohibited to bigger locos is eaten up with development costs and higher operations costs when used on "normal" services.

The scales tip suddenly if DRS have a contract that specifically requires smaller engines & that pays long term,

Agreed. Any lines that are barred to the bigger types are unlikely to be seeing freight traffic anyway. In which case the requirement is only for engineering trains, where the occasional requirement for loco haulage can be met either with a Class 37 or with the rebuilt 73s. There certainly isn't a business case for new Type 3s.

 

[DarloRich]

Agreed. Any lines that are barred to the bigger types are unlikely to be seeing freight traffic anyway. In which case the requirement is only for engineering trains, where the occasional requirement for loco haulage can be met either with a Class 37 or with the rebuilt 73s. There certainly isn't a business case for new Type 3s.

Agreed - that is exactly the kind of work the 73/9 was designed for

 

[mushroomchow]

If you want proper West Highland diesel nostalgia, we really should be looking at a modern day equivalent of a Class 27 (or if you want the reliability issues, a 21)

You may as well re-engine a Gronk with something out of a lawnmower if that's the plan!

 

[Rail Blues]

I don't think the new locos should have CAT engines. Rather they should buy British and go with the revised design of VP185 being pushed by MAN and featured in Modern Railway's July "Pan Up". Available in 12 and 18 cylinder variants.

And given we are still members of the EU for the moment at least, such a move along with being restrictive and short sighted, would be illegal and may remain so, depending what sort of deal is struck. However if we do crash out of the EU, what engine will be used in an as yetunbuilt loco that may or may not be ordered by DRS will be the very least of our worries.

 

[CosherB]

Why CS didn't rebuild 37s or even 47s instead of the silly 73/9s Ill never know. 73/9 RA isn't great, why keep the third rail capability for locos that will be working mainly on non third rail lines?

Maybe these new locos would be more suitable with ETS capable of CS Mk5.

What's your beef with the 73/9s? New MTU engines fitted, 90mph capable, ETS of 70 ..... what's not to like?

 

[GrimShady]

What's your beef with the 73/9s? New MTU engines fitted, 90mph capable, ETS of 70 ..... what's not to like?

Carting round traction equipment that will see very little use, RA6, isn't the thermal efficiency of one large prime mover better than two small units? It's not been the most successful of rebuilds.

It just seem a strange choice. As I recall there was quite a heated discussion on the suitability of these locos for the job required.

 

[Rail Blues]

Carting round traction equipment that will see very little use, RA6, isn't the thermal efficiency of one large prime mover better than two small units? It's not been the most successful of rebuilds.

It just seem a strange choice. As I recall there was quite a heated discussion on the suitability of these locos for the job required.

As far as I am aware 73s have a single MTU prime mover, the two Ultra 73s done for NR have 2 smaller Cummins prime movers.

 

[Rail Blues]

would hazard a guess that the CAT engine is no better than the European MTU 4000 series or the VP185 designs, but cheaper due to mass production. Another high speed diesel engine choice might be the Cummins QSK95 as used in the Amtrak and Brightline Charger locomotives. I think this is the most powerful "high speed" rail diesel because the 16 cylinder Charger lump produces 4,400 hp!

'Hazard a guess' based on what? Even if that were the case (and we have no idea beyond blind guesswork) I assume you will be prepared to compensate DRS for any increased costs they incur and/or compensate them for lost revenue if they fail to live up to the Cat or the MTU equivalents?

 

[GB]

deleted

 

[DarloRich]

Carting round traction equipment that will see very little use, RA6, isn't the thermal efficiency of one large prime mover better than two small units? It's not been the most successful of rebuilds.

Are they RA6? Early days with a new form of traction. The yellow ones seem to be going ok.

 

[Far north 37]

Are they RA6? Early days with a new form of traction. The yellow ones seem to be going ok.

Yes class 73 RA6.

 

[Journeyman]

Agreed. Any lines that are barred to the bigger types are unlikely to be seeing freight traffic anyway. In which case the requirement is only for engineering trains, where the occasional requirement for loco haulage can be met either with a Class 37 or with the rebuilt 73s. There certainly isn't a business case for new Type 3s.

It's getting to the point when many inspection/engineering vehicles are self-propelled anyway.

 

[Journeyman]

What's your beef with the 73/9s? New MTU engines fitted, 90mph capable, ETS of 70 ..... what's not to like?

They've had some horrific teething problems, but the performance of them is absolutely phenomenal.

 

[43096]

Carting round traction equipment that will see very little use, RA6, isn't the thermal efficiency of one large prime mover better than two small units? It's not been the most successful of rebuilds.

It just seem a strange choice. As I recall there was quite a heated discussion on the suitability of these locos for the job required.

The GBRf conversions have one engine (MTU 8V4000 R43) and the initial reliability issues have been fixed (key issue was the alternator).

GBRf are very happy with their performance. You, on the other hand, seem to be criticising from a position of ignorance.

 

[Skymonster]

I disagree. When you MoSCoW ( Must/Should/Could/Would have) the idea the suggestion of a small batch of RA3 locos doesn't stack up.

Although DRS ordered its first batch of 68s in 2012, it continued to have 37s restored until this year. That points to DRS seeing value in type-3 / RA5 locos over 68s which to date haven't exactly been worked off their fleet (wheels!). There are currently 30-40 class 37s on the national rail network (DRS, Network Rail, Colas, ROG - leaving out WCRC because it's unlikely to be in the new loco market) plus a selection of non-reengineered 73s with GBRf, all of which are candidates to be replaced before long. So to the contrary, there should be a market for a lighter, just <2,000hp, ETS, RA5, type 3 loco capable of 90-100mph. Aside from test trains a "new" loco could potentially replace the 68s that are currently working fairly short-formed passenger turns such as Chiltern, Anglia, Northern (and maybe even TPE in the mid-/long-term) leaving the 68s to work the heavier freights for which they were designed. A new type-3 would also be suitable for the nuclear flasks which again are hardly taxing the 68's capability. And they would burn less fuel and have lower track access charges than a heavier type-5, which would mitigate the cost of another type of traction in the fleet. The first order for 68s was only 15 - new type-3 with an initial order from DRS for 10 but with a good possibility of more to follow surely wouldn't be that bad a proposition.

 

[Far north 37]

Carting round traction equipment that will see very little use, RA6, isn't the thermal efficiency of one large prime mover better than two small units? It's not been the most successful of rebuilds.

It just seem a strange choice. As I recall there was quite a heated discussion on the suitability of these locos for the job required.

The GBRf conversions have one engine (MTU 8V4000 R43) and the initial reliability issues have been fixed (key issue was the alternator).

GBRf are very happy with their performance. You, on the other hand, seem to be criticising from a position of ignorance.

Also gbrf had the locos in the first place why would they go out and buy a whole fleet of new locos and re engine them instead of locos they had already.

 

[43096]

Also gbrf had the locos in the first place why would they go out and buy a whole fleet of new locos and re engine them instead of locos they had already.

Yes, that’s a very good point.

 

[GrimShady]

The GBRf conversions have one engine (MTU 8V4000 R43) and the initial reliability issues have been fixed (key issue was the alternator).

GBRf are very happy with their performance. You, on the other hand, seem to be criticising from a position of ignorance.

Now been fixed...after how long?

They have been criticised by many others, not just myself. I'll admit I don't keep a day by day account of the locomotives performance, merely a passing interest. Last time I checked they were still having some serious issues. Hard enough keeping up with the changes in my own industry.

 

[GrimShady]

Also gbrf had the locos in the first place why would they go out and buy a whole fleet of new locos and re engine them instead of locos they had already.

Seems to be what DRS are doing?

 

[xotGD]

A Type 3 Baby Cat?

A kitten.

I just can't see it happening. While a Type 5 is OTT for light loads it offers the flexibility at the expense of efficiency.

Perhaps a Type 5 with two engines is the answer? Switch one off when not needed.

 

[a_c_skinner]

Perhaps a Type 5 with two engines

IIRC the rail article speculated thus.

 

[GrimShady]

A Type 3 Baby Cat?

A kitten.

I just can't see it happening. While a Type 5 is OTT for light loads it offers the flexibility at the expense of efficiency.

Perhaps a Type 5 with two engines is the answer? Switch one off when not needed.

Very good idea IMHO.

However what sort of RA would we be taking about then? Would it be possible to meet RA5? Assuming of course that's what DRS is looking for.

 

[birchesgreen]

Any new locos bought for the network from now on should be a bimodes