Where will bi-mode locomotives (e.g. classes 99, 93, 88) be used?

[class442]

I know the idea of 99s on the sleeper has been much discussed and shot down, but I'm hearing that a number of 99s will be fitted with ETS and dellner couplers, and potentially used on the sleepers.

 

[zwk500]

I know the idea of 99s on the sleeper has been much discussed and shot down, but I'm hearing that a number of 99s will be fitted with ETS and dellner couplers, and potentially used on the sleepers.

Are you able to say from where/whom you are hearing this?

 

[class442]

Are you able to say from where/whom you are hearing this?

Without giving myself away too much, from an internal NR source who is involved with GBRf.

 

[Class15]

I know the idea of 99s on the sleeper has been much discussed and shot down, but I'm hearing that a number of 99s will be fitted with ETS and dellner couplers, and potentially used on the sleepers.

Presumably the Class 92s could switch to working freight from Dollands Moor to Daventry, of which GBRf have af least one train a day. The remaining ‘92s’ could then be utilised on the car trains from Dagenham to Garston and Mossend. That could take up most of the ‘92’ fleet.

Clearly this is speculation but it could be a good way of making continued use of the ‘92s’, while the non-sleeper ‘99s’ could operate container trains out of London Gateway.

 

[JohnMcL7]

Presumably the Class 92s could switch to working freight from Dollands Moor to Daventry, of which GBRf have af least one train a day. The remaining ‘92s’ could then be utilised on the car trains from Dagenham to Garston and Mossend. That could take up most of the ‘92’ fleet.

Clearly this is speculation but it could be a good way of making continued use of the ‘92s’, while the non-sleeper ‘99s’ could operate container trains out of London Gateway.

What is the advantage of freeing up the 92s for freight work when the 99s could do that work?

 

[brad465]

How easily could these locos replace class 37s still in non-preservation use? Or could they displace 66s/68s that replace 37s?

 

[43096]

Presumably the Class 92s could switch to working freight from Dollands Moor to Daventry, of which GBRf have af least one train a day. The remaining ‘92s’ could then be utilised on the car trains from Dagenham to Garston and Mossend. That could take up most of the ‘92’ fleet.

Clearly this is speculation but it could be a good way of making continued use of the ‘92s’, while the non-sleeper ‘99s’ could operate container trains out of London Gateway.

You are proposing a “solution” to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. The 92s have settled down to give good reliability on the sleepers after the work GBRf put in to sort them out.

 

[Class15]

You are proposing a “solution” to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. The 92s have settled down to give good reliability on the sleepers after the work GBRf put in to sort them out.

I don’t want the 92s to be taken off the sleeper, but the post at the top of the page suggested that 99s might be fitted with ETS and Dellners for it.

 

[zwk500]

Presumably the Class 92s could switch to working freight from Dollands Moor to Daventry, of which GBRf have af least one train a day. The remaining ‘92s’ could then be utilised on the car trains from Dagenham to Garston and Mossend. That could take up most of the ‘92’ fleet.

AIUI 92s aren't authorised to work north of Crewe due to the problems of their power draw (and possibly signalling interference?) EDIT: Corrected as per @Kite159's remark below!

Clearly this is speculation but it could be a good way of making continued use of the ‘92s’, while the non-sleeper ‘99s’ could operate container trains out of London Gateway.

This assumes anybody *wants* to make continued use of the 92s, which are now 30+ years old, don't have last mile capability and have always had problems with their power draw.

How easily could these locos replace class 37s still in non-preservation use? Or could they displace 66s/68s that replace 37s?

Class 37s are RA (Route Availability) 5, and 66s, 68s and 88s are RA7, so not very easily. Hence why 66s haven't already displaced them. Suggestion from early press articles is that 93s and 99s will also be RA7 but I can't actually access the articles to check the preview is correct.
Running RA7 locos on RA5/6 routes is possible but only with special permission, which usually involves quite a lot of low-speed restrictions over bridges.

 

[Nottingham59]

Suggestion from early press articles is that 93s and 99s will also be RA7 but I can't actually access the articles to check the preview is correct.

For the 93 would that be because of higher axle loadings, rather than overall weight? The 93 weighs 86t compared to the 102t of a 37.
But maybe the higher maximum speed (110mph vs 90mph) makes a difference?

 

[brad465]

Class 37s are RA (Route Availability) 5, and 66s, 68s and 88s are RA7, so not very easily. Hence why 66s haven't already displaced them. Suggestion from early press articles is that 93s and 99s will also be RA7 but I can't actually access the articles to check the preview is correct.
Running RA7 locos on RA5/6 routes is possible but only with special permission, which usually involves quite a lot of low-speed restrictions over bridges.

If that's the case, are there any new RA5 locos in the pipeline? The ones left are circa 60 years old and don't seem to have undergone a Class 47 to 57 or 56 to 69 overhaul that technically makes them younger than this.

 

[Kite159]

AIUI 92s aren't authorised to work north of Crewe due to the problems of their power draw (and possibly signalling interference?)

Someone better tell GBRf that 92s are not meant to be used on sleeper services north of Crewe

 

[43096]

AIUI 92s aren't authorised to work north of Crewe due to the problems of their power draw (and possibly signalling interference?)

So what are the Caledonian sleepers hauled by north of Crewe?

 

[zwk500]

Someone better tell GBRf that 92s are not meant to be used on sleeper services north of Crewe

Fair point - I thought that might have been on special permission as there's less load on the system overnight but they're generally cleared in the Sectional Appendix for quite a wide range of routes north of Crewe.

For the 93 would that be because of higher axle loadings, rather than overall weight? The 93 weighs 86t compared to the 102t of a 37.
But maybe the higher maximum speed (110mph vs 90mph) makes a difference?

I don't know, and I haven't seen anything official confirming the RA of a 93 or 99 at all. Other posts on another thread indicated one of them might be a different RA but that was equally as unconfirmed. RA isn't purely about axle load, it's also about the weight distribution and how it impacts structures.

If that's the case, are there any new RA5 locos in the pipeline? The ones left are circa 60 years old and don't seem to have undergone a Class 47 to 57 or 56 to 69 overhaul that technically makes them younger than this.

None that I'm aware of (not that I'm comprehensively across stock news). However the need for one isn't particularly clear. Running a standard loco slowly for the handful of times you do need a loco-hauled train on a route that's RA6 or below is likely more cost effective than procuring a lightweight loco that would likely be a poor performer on a big bulk mainline 75mph freight flow. There's been trials of flows on low-RA routes (usually wood) and they've rarely if ever resulted in sustained flows. And if one did, there might be opportunities to eliminate the worst restrictions.

 

[I'm here now]

I don’t want the 92s to be taken off the sleeper, but the post at the top of the page suggested that 99s might be fitted with ETS and Dellners for it.

Might they be meaning the Night Rivera?