DRS Planning 10 X Mixed Traffic Locos

[Rob F]

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

Ah bimodes, the solution to all problems, the ultimate panacea.........

 

[richieb1971]

A smaller loco would be too small for a bimode operation surely? I still think my engine and tender idea works best. Would suit a slightly smaller than type 5 loco.

Why 10?

 

[JohnMcL7]

A smaller loco would be too small for a bimode operation surely? I still think my engine and tender idea works best. Would suit a slightly smaller than type 5 loco.

Why 10?

Even the bigger 88 can only squeeze in a 1000bhp engine, I was assuming the person was making that comment in jest after all the bimode DMU discussions here.

 

[squizzler]

'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?

American engines have a reputation amongst motorcyclists and motorists for being less refined, shall we say, than European or Japanese designs. Even the US locomotive builders know this and adapt European engines which is why the current GE GEVO and Powerhaul engines are derived from EU designs (Deutz and Janbacher respectively). I even read on another forum that the EMD 1010 probably shares its genes with the MTU 8000.

AS for the VP185 "failing to live up to the Cat and MTU equivalent", I think you will find the VP185 has done considerably more duty on UK metals than the Cat 175.

So to the contrary, there should be a market for a lighter, just <2,000hp, ETS, RA5, type 3 loco capable of 90-100mph.

I think a modest power centre-cab design would have its place in the UK scene.

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.

I get the impression that mainline operators like Chiltern and TPE utilise the power of the 68's - the maximum number of Mk 5's that TPE would hang on their 68's - should traffic require it - is only 7 cars. Agreed they are wasted in Anglia and Cumbrian coast.

 

[GrimShady]

Mods please delete, double post by accident.

 

[GrimShady]

A smaller loco would be too small for a bimode operation surely? I still think my engine and tender idea works best. Would suit a slightly smaller than type 5 loco.

Why 10?

I would agree with you however there are drawbacks in such and arrangement.

• Having to shunt the tender end to end.
• Fairly beefy power connectors required.
• Heavy modification of existing locos.
• It would have to be industry wide to be successful I think.
• Still carting round large diesel engines although granted the power of OHLE should be able to cover that quite easily.

It would be nice to see and certainly a change in approach.

 

[richieb1971]

Cab at each end of loco plus tender was my thinking on a new build. You could have a dvt as well if it's passenger. It's not worth doing on pre existing unless your using scrap 60s as a project box.

 

[DimTim]

All current new build have been bo-bo whereas our beloved Class 37 is co-co. Is there any merit in a new build co-co?

 

[43096]

AS for the VP185 "failing to live up to the Cat and MTU equivalent", I think you will find the VP185 has done considerably more duty on UK metals than the Cat 175.

And against the MTU 4000, the VP185 uses less fuel, less oil and goes longer between overhauls.

 

[Cowley]

And against the MTU 4000, the VP185 uses less fuel, less oil and goes longer between overhauls.

That’s interesting. I didn’t know that.

 

[hooverboy]

Is there any point in replacing the 37's EE V12 with something more modern / cleaner / quieter & possibly more powerful?
Assuming of course that said 37's were worth keeping, (corrosion/ old wiring, etc.)

how about hst (mtu) power plant?..plenty of them going to be doing the rounds....just add bogie.

only about 10 years old,plenty of spares and kicks out 2200bhp....nicely in type 3/type 4 territory.

vivarail getting a sideline in freight loco's now?

 

[43096]

how about hst (mtu) power plant?..plenty of them going to be doing the rounds....just add bogie.

only about 10 years old,plenty of spares and kicks out 2200bhp....nicely in type 3/type 4 territory.

vivarail getting a sideline in freight loco's now?

And the HST MTUs are now into their third full overhaul cycle (i.e. beyond the second QL4). They were only expected to do two cycles.

 

[DenmarkRail]

Well, since DRS is an indirectly nationalised business, I’d hope they make the right choice to ensure the money of the tax payer is spent right....

Essentially, from what I can tell, they’re looking for locomotives that can almost compete with the 73s, in some senses... While unlikely, I’d love to see a UK diesel Siemens vectron

 

[Scotrail84]

Type 3s would be most useful for various jobs providing the RA is right. CS should have went for something like this in place of the silly 73/9 order.

I thought thats why DRS ordered the 88s only to be undercut by GBRF for the sleeper contract at the last minute?

 

[Scotrail84]

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.

Same could be said for the 92s.

 

[HSTEd]

Even the bigger 88 can only squeeze in a 1000bhp engine, I was assuming the person was making that comment in jest after all the bimode DMU discussions here.

The Class 88 is a lightweight Bo-Bo locomotive.

A Co-Co would have far more weight and significantly more room to spare.

It also has substantially more power than a pure diesel locomotive would have, implying that its traction transformer is bigger than you would need for a ~3000hp bi-mode.

 

[JohnMcL7]

Well, since DRS is an indirectly nationalised business, I’d hope they make the right choice to ensure the money of the tax payer is spent right....

Essentially, from what I can tell, they’re looking for locomotives that can almost compete with the 73s, in some senses... While unlikely, I’d love to see a UK diesel Siemens vectron

As much as I like the 37's I have thought it can't be economic to be running 1960's engine technology for regular use as I'd have thought a modern diesel engine would be more reliable and more fuel efficient.

 

[LOL The Irony]

I think you will find the VP185 has done considerably more duty on UK metals than the Cat 175.

The VP185 has been used for almost 24 years.

 

[GrimShady]

I thought thats why DRS ordered the 88s only to be undercut by GBRF for the sleeper contract at the last minute?

Was that the case? I don't know. Would the 88s even have enough power on diesel to keep good time and have a high enough ETS rating?

Same could be said for the 92s.

True, but they still spend a good portion of their time down south in close proximity to the third rail network unlike the 73s. I suppose it's down to how much space and weight the third rail traction package takes up.

 

[GrimShady]

The Class 88 is a lightweight Bo-Bo locomotive.

A Co-Co would have far more weight and significantly more room to spare.

It also has substantially more power than a pure diesel locomotive would have, implying that its traction transformer is bigger than you would need for a ~3000hp bi-mode.

You do have the benefit of spreading the axle load out with a Co-Co.

 

[hooverboy]

All current new build have been bo-bo whereas our beloved Class 37 is co-co. Is there any merit in a new build co-co?

yes,sort of. you'll get better tractive effort with 6 sets of traction motors,so able to pull heavier loads/better acceleration(depending on how the motors are geared/wired)

comes at the expense of route availability though,so the bogie needs to be short wheelbase if possible..that'll keep the RA low.

 

[a_c_skinner]

I had thought RA was more about axle loading, how is it worked out?

 

[43096]

I thought thats why DRS ordered the 88s only to be undercut by GBRF for the sleeper contract at the last minute?

They were not undercut by GBRf. Each of the three bidders for the sleeper franchise had a different traction provider: GBRf, DRS or DB. Serco had GBRf as their provider so when Serco won, GBRf got the contract as a result.

If DRS ordered 10 new locos for a contract they had a 1 in 3 chance of winning and the bidding wasn’t in their own hands, before knowing if they had won, then they are a bunch of incompetent idiots.

 

[birchesgreen]

Even the bigger 88 can only squeeze in a 1000bhp engine, I was assuming the person was making that comment in jest after all the bimode DMU discussions here.

Well maybe a bit but these locos would most likely be still in service in the 2060s so some future proofing needs to be considered. Plus anyway if the railways don't start the process of reducing the use of diesel soon the network will be in serious trouble in a couple of decades.

An uprated Class 88 would be interesting.

 

[JohnMcL7]

I had thought RA was more about axle loading, how is it worked out?

I thought the same hence the Class 37 is RA5 while the lighter 73/9's with a Bo-Bo arrangement are RA6. The Bo-Bo Class 67 is RA8 and on another topic here I think someone said it had very high track access charges? I've been curious what the trade offs are since a lot of the recent new engines are Bo-Bo, Wikipedia doesn't show much detail apart from to mention more wheels to reduce axle load, to improve traction or Bo-Bo layouts to improve cornering speed.

 

[class 9]

I thought the same hence the Class 37 is RA5 while the lighter 73/9's with a Bo-Bo arrangement are RA6. The Bo-Bo Class 67 is RA8 and on another topic here I think someone said it had very high track access charges? I've been curious what the trade offs are since a lot of the recent new engines are Bo-Bo, Wikipedia doesn't show much detail apart from to mention more wheels to reduce axle load, to improve traction or Bo-Bo layouts to improve cornering speed.

RA is about individual axle weight, a Co Co is 6 axles, whereas Bo Bo is 4. So it's total loco weight divided by either 4 or 6.

 

[a_c_skinner]

RA is about individual axle weight

Yes that is what I thought but a knowledgeable member implied there was more to it, including the bogie wheelbase - or I misunderstood this:

so the bogie needs to be short wheelbase if possible..that'll keep the RA low.

Does unsprung mass come into it? I'm thinking Class 86s here.

 

[ac6000cw]

American engines have a reputation amongst motorcyclists and motorists for being less refined, shall we say, than European or Japanese designs.

Comparing a V-twin Harley-Davidson engine to a (for example) V-twin 'desmodromic' Ducati engine is a total chalk-and-cheese situation. They are both good engines for the types of motorcycle they power, and are a major part of the 'DNA' of those brands. A Harley wouldn't be a Harley without the burble and bark of a big 45 degree V-twin...

Even the US locomotive builders know this and adapt European engines which is why the current GE GEVO and Powerhaul engines are derived from EU designs (Deutz and Janbacher respectively). I even read on another forum that the EMD 1010 probably shares its genes with the MTU 8000.

Off-topic, but to set the record straight - as far as I know it - the two incarnations of the GE 'EVO' engine, the original Tier-3 and the current Tier-4 version, are both (US) GE designs. GE and Deutz had a joint development partnership to develop the earlier 'HDL' engine, which debuted for GE as a 6250hp 7HDL V16 version in the AC6000CW locos in 1995, but that engine had some major problems (excessive vibration and cavitation issues AFAIK). So eventually GE and Deutz parted company and GE developed the EVO series on their own - eventually all the AC6000CWs were re-engined with V16 GEVO engines.

The Jenbacher design was/is a spark-ignition gas engine - the 'PowerHaul' P616 diesel derivative (used in the class 70) was designed in the US, using the gas engine as a basis.

But all diesel engines have European 'DNA' - their inventor, Rudolf Diesel, was German after all...

I think a modest power centre-cab design would have its place in the UK scene.

I agree - the equivalent of a type-3 would be a Cat or MTU powered MaK/Vossloh centre-cab diesel-hydraulic in other parts of Europe.

 

[the sniper]

At the same time that Vossloh came up with the UKLight (what we now know as the Class 68) they were also pushing an AsiaLight, a Co-Co variation with an axle load of 16t, so RA3. There's a reference to it on page 35 of this PDF: https://www.vossloh.com/documents/i...English/vossloh_geschaeftsbericht_2012_us.pdf It's still on this Stadler product list (page 8) from 2016, but with no data provided: https://www.applrguk.co.uk/media/files/LR-Applrg-Stadler-Sheffield-Tramtrain-25-May-2016pdf

I think they were advertising it primarily at narrower gauges like 3ft 6in, with it being an option under consideration by KiwiRail for an introduction in 2022, but I can't imagine a standard gauge variety weighing too much more? Maybe enough to knock it into RA5 though. Offered at least with the same engine as the Class 68.

 

[CosherB]

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.

I hope you're not referring to the fabled publication called "The Scotsman"?

The fact is that the 73/9s are now doing a sterling job running the diesel legs in Scotland. Similarly, against all expectations by some, Wabtec and GBRf have turned their 92s into reliable lekky locos for the Anglo-Scottish legs of the CS. I think we have to accept that GBRf know what they are doing. That's something I normally can't quite believe when it comes to DRS.