GBRf Class 99 - 30 locomotives now ordered

[Trainbike46]

I think they will ultimately spread across a number of routes, but obviously start with routes where virtually all is electrified.

The oldest class 66s are now 25 years old, and at stage some are going to need replacing.

25 years doesn't sound that old for a locomotive though, given the amount of 1960s locos still around

Then again, I did read somewhere that GBRf saw these as the new 66s

 

[McRhu]

Is there still room for the 93s?

 

[Nottingham59]

Is there still room for the 93s?

93s are lighter and will have lower access charges. And more fuel efficient (potentially). So if the load is light enough for them to get up the hills, a 93 should be very competitive against a 99.

And much faster on electrified gradients than a 66 or a 70, if the load is light enough.

 

[ac6000cw]

I noticed an article in Rail Engineer that reports that under diesel the Class 99 will deliver 1600kW at the wheel, which corresponds with what we already know.

1600kW should be able to haul a 1000T train up a 1% gradient at 16m/s (36mph), reducing to 14mph for a 2500T load.

Can anyone tell me what the balancing speed on level track would be for a 2500T intermodal being hauled by a 1600kW locomotive?

If you want to try guesstimating it, there is some info on the friction of wagon bearings vs. speed in the research paper linked in this post - https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/minimum-train-rollaway-gradient.229455/post-5585654 (but a higher speeds, I suspect the aerodynamic drag of the containers is likely to be significant, maybe more than wheel bearing friction and track elasticity).

 

[LOL The Irony]

93s are lighter and will have lower access charges. And more fuel efficient (potentially). So if the load is light enough for them to get up the hills, a 93 should be very competitive against a 99.

And much faster on electrified gradients than a 66 or a 70, if the load is light enough.

But they're not direct replacements for 66s or 70s. They're direct replacements for 37s, which are lighter and have a higher ra rating.

 

[Trainbike46]

But they're not direct replacements for 66s or 70s. They're direct replacements for 37s, which are lighter and have a higher ra rating.

the 99s were supposed to be 66 replacements for GBRf

The 93s are new locomotives for ROG, which currently mostly uses 37s

If you're talking about the 93s you might be in the wrong thread

 

[Nottingham59]

the aerodynamic drag of the containers is likely to be significant, maybe more than wheel bearing friction and track elasticity

Im sure the aerodynamic drag is the overwhelmingly important factor in determining balancing speed. Even weight should be insignificant, though a heavy train will take longer to accelerate to that speed.

 

[hwl]

OK. So what would be the balancing speed of a fully-loaded full-length 775m intermodal train, hauled by 1600kW locomotive?

What is:
a) the gearing of the locomotive (higher speed gearing is not helpful...)
b) the wheel diameter of the locomotive
c) how many axles does the locomotive have
TE is what matters rather than power

Then a huge lot of wagon assumptions needed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Feb 2023 ==

Im sure the aerodynamic drag is the overwhelmingly important factor in determining balancing speed. Even weight should be insignificant, though a heavy train will take longer to accelerate to that speed.

Weight has a huge effect as soon as gradients are involved.

 

[Class15]

the 99s were supposed to be 66 replacements for GBRf

The 93s are new locomotives for ROG, which currently mostly uses 37s

If you're talking about the 93s you might be in the wrong thread

I doubt these will lead to 66s being scrapped - GBRf keep winning new contracts and wanting more locos…

 

[Energy]

I doubt these will lead to 66s being scrapped - GBRf keep winning new contracts and wanting more locos…

GBRf have been taking every 66 they can get including overseas ones. It's pretty clear that these locos will be supplemental for now.

 

[Trainbike46]

I doubt these will lead to 66s being scrapped - GBRf keep winning new contracts and wanting more locos…

yeah sorry, I meant that GBRf intend to use these on similar work to 66s, rather than any 66s being scrapped

but some of the original sources did refer to the 99s as 66 replacements

 

[Deepgreen]

25 years doesn't sound that old for a locomotive though, given the amount of 1960s locos still around

Then again, I did read somewhere that GBRf saw these as the new 66s

I would hope the option of installing new engines in the older/all 66s would be considered rather than outright scrapping anyway.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Feb 2023 ==

Im sure the aerodynamic drag is the overwhelmingly important factor in determining balancing speed. Even weight should be insignificant, though a heavy train will take longer to accelerate to that speed.

Are you referring to the gaps between containers creating turbulence and drag? I imagine this can become important at high speeds but weight is much more of a factor across the speed range.

 

[Bald Rick]

Im sure the aerodynamic drag is the overwhelmingly important factor in determining balancing speed. Even weight should be insignificant, though a heavy train will take longer to accelerate to that speed.

as any half serious road cyclist will tell you, weight is everything when going up hill.

 

[Meerkat]

I would hope the option of installing new engines in the older/all 66s would be considered rather than outright scrapping anyway.

Why would you do that if they are being replaced by much more efficient bi/tri modes?
Would they be able to fit a similarly powerful engine that meets future standards - I would have thought they would have kept being ordered if that was so.

 

[Nottingham59]

as any half serious road cyclist will tell you, weight is everything when going up hill.

I was talking about balancing speed on the level

 

[Wavertreelad]

By 2025 Seaforth Railhead should capable of handling 775 mtr intermodal trains, Peel have recently tendered for a contractor to extend the existing terminal. MSC own 50% or the new Liverpool 2 container terminal and following their split with Maersk by Jan 2025 look set to expand their operations from the terminal, and hence the new Peel investment. It looks like a few Class 99's could be deployed working expanded intermodal services from the port in addition to the services already previously mentioned.

 

[66701GBRF]

Then they are running as exceptional loads then. Not aware of anything being timed over 1600t trailing. 1800t has only recently started getting running times. Your ex FOC will be getting delay minutes if loss of time is getting noticed.

Why would they be exceptional loads? As you know that is a specific meaning and requires specific paperwork, these run under standard running. I’ve just dug out a couple of train lists for this week and the “Authorised Load” has been between 2200-2500t.

 

[D821]

By 2025 Seaforth Railhead should capable of handling 775 mtr intermodal trains, Peel have recently tendered for a contractor to extend the existing terminal. MSC own 50% or the new Liverpool 2 container terminal and following their split with Maersk by Jan 2025 look set to expand their operations from the terminal, and hence the new Peel investment. It looks like a few Class 99's could be deployed working expanded intermodal services from the port in addition to the services already previously mentioned.

That's interesting to hear, where did you read about all the work at the terminal?

 

[The Planner]

Why would they be exceptional loads? As you know that is a specific meaning and requires specific paperwork, these run under standard running. I’ve just dug out a couple of train lists for this week and the “Authorised Load” has been between 2200-2500t.

Between where and where and are they Class 4? As there are no Class 4 running times on the WCML or ECML for example above 1800t.

 

[66701GBRF]

4M18 Felixstowe Trafford Park: Authorised Max Load 2510t
4M04 Felixstowe Hams Hall: Authorised Max Load 2310t
4M13 Felixstowe Hams Hall: Authorised Max Load 2310t
4E11 Felixstowe Masborough: Authorised Max Load 2420t

To name a few. Does the 1800t you mention include the wagons and loco or is it just payload?

 

[Wyrleybart]

4M18 Felixstowe Trafford Park: Authorised Max Load 2510t
4M04 Felixstowe Hams Hall: Authorised Max Load 2310t
4M13 Felixstowe Hams Hall: Authorised Max Load 2310t
4E11 Felixstowe Masborough: Authorised Max Load 2420t

To name a few. Does the 1800t you mention include the wagons and loco or is it just payload?

I suppose the tare weight of a 30 wagon train would be in the order of 130t+30x25t* 880 tonnes.

*25t per flat is a guess.

 

[themiller]

Not forgetting that RSSB have authorised higher loads on couplings for freight trains.

 

[Wavertreelad]

That's interesting to hear, where did you read about all the work at the terminal?

Here you go, confirmation of the tender process. https://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/tenders/view/10911

 

[D821]

Here you go, confirmation of the tender process. https://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/tenders/view/10911

Excellent, thank you. I'd googled around a bit only found info about the last upgrade.

 

[zwk500]

4M18 Felixstowe Trafford Park: Authorised Max Load 2510t
4M04 Felixstowe Hams Hall: Authorised Max Load 2310t
4M13 Felixstowe Hams Hall: Authorised Max Load 2310t
4E11 Felixstowe Masborough: Authorised Max Load 2420t

To name a few. Does the 1800t you mention include the wagons and loco or is it just payload?

The weight for both authorisation and timing purposes will be including wagons and anything on them but excluding any locomotive providing power.

 

[The Planner]

4M18 Felixstowe Trafford Park: Authorised Max Load 2510t
4M04 Felixstowe Hams Hall: Authorised Max Load 2310t
4M13 Felixstowe Hams Hall: Authorised Max Load 2310t
4E11 Felixstowe Masborough: Authorised Max Load 2420t

To name a few. Does the 1800t you mention include the wagons and loco or is it just payload?

4M18 is timed with 1600 tonnes trailing, 4M04 is timed as 1600 tonnes trailing (is a Birch Coppice train), 4M13 is timed as 1600 tonnes trailing and 4E11 is as well. There is nothing in the specially authorised loads spreadsheet for those trains either.

 

[Wavertreelad]

Excellent, thank you. I'd googled around a bit only found info about the last upgrade.

i'd assume Peel are still evaluating the tenders and then of course getting board approval before they commit and formally announce the project, which possibly could also include some lifting hardware.

 

[66701GBRF]

4M18 is timed with 1600 tonnes trailing, 4M04 is timed as 1600 tonnes trailing (is a Birch Coppice train), 4M13 is timed as 1600 tonnes trailing and 4E11 is as well. There is nothing in the specially authorised loads spreadsheet for those trains either.

I'm just going by what’s authorised in TOPS. If the figures are below what is authorised then it runs, if there is a disconnect between timetable planning and TOPS then that is not the operators fault.

 

[The Planner]

I'm just going by what’s authorised in TOPS. If the figures are below what is authorised then it runs, if there is a disconnect between timetable planning and TOPS then that is not the operators fault.

There is no disconnect at all I would suggest. The FOC would have bid for a certain timing load and the schedules in TRUST also back the trailing load detail up at 1600t. So any delay minutes would go back to the operator.

 

[Nottingham59]

Just so I can follow this conversation, What would the trailing load be of a 775m intermodal, that was fully populated with typical containers? Thanks