Repowered Class 73 to roll out next year

[allticketspls]

From the Railway Gazette

Railway Vehicle Engineering Ltd is to rebuild a Class 73 electro-diesel locomotive with modern traction equipment. The prototype is currently at the design stage and RVEL hopes to complete the project during 2012.

Envisaged as a prototype for a possible fleet of 12 to 14 locomotives, the project has attracted interest from infrastructure manager Network Rail as well as freight and passenger operators using the 750 V DC third rail electrified network south of London.

RVEL told Railway Gazette International that the rebuild would have a 'go anywhere' capability, with potential duties including rescuing failed trains, hauling stock to and from workshops and helping out during severe cold weather.

The Class 73's 750 V DC traction control equipment would be stripped out and replaced by a DC chopper and the locomotive's 600 hp English Electric engine exchanged for a pair of Cummins QSK19 engines, each developing 750 hp and meeting Stage IIIA emissions regulations. The present control equipment would be replaced by an NForce control system and driver interface from US supplier National Railway Equipment Co, for whom RVEL is a UK distributor.

 

[jopsuk]

So, basically using the bogies, the chassis and the shell? Somewhat surprised that this is cheaper than new-build! More power when running in diesel mode would certainly be a boon for them.

 

[Hydro]

Utterly surprised they've gone for the 2 QSK19's. Rumours were CAT or EMD engines, RVEL are UK distributors for EMD kit now. This has serious potential to be a pretty good loco, basically a 31 that can use third rail. A super ED was first touted by BR, as the class 75. I kind of hope they honour the heritage by renumbering as such. I look forward to riding behind them, as I'm sure 138 will be a candidate.

 

[Aictos]

This certainly would prove useful, now if only they could do a AC version basically a Diesel which could run off the overheads or use it's own diesel engine....

 

[Skimble19]

Now that could be more difficult, I doubt there's room on a 73 for a pantograph as well.

 

[crewmeal]

Lets hope it can do a railtour 'up the Shap'

 

[87015]

NR Class 31 replacement for test trains? 1500hp isn't going to be much good for more than a short load on todays railway and there can't be much freight internal to the Southern or just off it anymore? Would have been ideal for enterprise trip workings onto the SR a few years ago though.

Surprised there are still 12-14 EDs knocking around unless GBRf are going to get involved.

 

[Hydro]

NR Class 31 replacement for test trains? 1500hp isn't going to be much good for more than a short load on todays railway and there can't be much freight internal to the Southern or just off it anymore? Would have been ideal for enterprise trip workings onto the SR a few years ago though.

Surprised there are still 12-14 EDs knocking around unless GBRf are going to get involved.

That number probably includes GBRf's fleet. I can see them being interested as they operate a fair few engineers trains on the Southern that use a pair of ED's. Southern have one as a thunderbird for the 442 fleet. NR only have one ED at the moment, 138. I have heard that 31 spares are starting to get a bit thin on the ground, so depending on whether NR can source any more ED's they could be at least be supplementary. It just makes them more flexible, this refit will mean that the diesel power will at last approach their electrical output. I've worked with ED's on diesel and they're not particularly urgent about their progress, even in multiple. They are however, surprisingly strong, if not particularly fast.

 

[Aictos]

Now that could be more difficult, I doubt there's room on a 73 for a pantograph as well.

There's no point in trying to fit a pantograph to a Class 73.

If it's possible for BR to build a loco capable of being used both on 3rd rail and non 3rd rail sections, it should be possible for the modern day builders to offer a similar product but working off both the overheads and diesel.

 

[mbonwick]

From what I understand, EMD engines were never on the table as they do not meet emissions standards.

CAT own EMD these days and are keen to put their own compliant engines in where possible.

 

[159220]

Surely a better option for GBRf would be to buy a DC 3rd Rail version of the proposed Traxx UK from Bombardier? It cannot be cheap re-building a 73, once compared to a new locomotive, along with its higher power rating (Ie 1 Traxx for 2 73s on Southern Eng. Trains), over a locomotive life time period, the Traxx becomes far more attractive. What with rebuilding a 73 you get another 10-15 use? A Traxx 30years plus?

 

[LE Greys]

There's no point in trying to fit a pantograph to a Class 73.

If it's possible for BR to build a loco capable of being used both on 3rd rail and non 3rd rail sections, it should be possible for the modern day builders to offer a similar product but working off both the overheads and diesel.

If you take out all the multi-voltage equipment, there would probably be enough space inside a Class 92 for an MTU 12V 4000 (smaller than the 16V inside the HSTs) and a generator. That should give you about 2,000 hp on diesel (they can do more, but would probably be downrated), plus the usual 92 power on overhead, but would not be able to use 3rd rail any more. Working through the tunnel would be limited to trips down HS1 (unlikely). Still, 2,000 hp is probably enough to get a decent-length train up Lickey. Anyone know what a Class 40's maximum unassisted load was up there?

 

[jopsuk]

Working through the tunnel would be limited to trips down HS1 (unlikely).

Why? Although it would be a little daft, they could work to the tunnel on diesel, using the same routes they use on 3rd rail (or that 66s use to get to Dollands Moor).

 

[LE Greys]

Why? Although it would be a little daft, they could work to the tunnel on diesel, using the same routes they use on 3rd rail (or that 66s use to get to Dollands Moor).

Well, yes they could, but it would be more likely that unrebuilt 92s would continue to do that job. Does anyone have information on how many routes run directly from the Continent to yards in Britain, with or without an engine change?

 

[Yew]

So, basically using the bogies, the chassis and the shell? Somewhat surprised that this is cheaper than new-build! More power when running in diesel mode would certainly be a boon for them.

chances are a refurbishment/refit doesnt have to go past the DFT, whereas new stock might have to

 

[truckman060473]

From the Railway Gazette





The Class 73's 750 V DC traction control equipment would be stripped out and replaced by a DC chopper and the locomotive's 600 hp English Electric engine exchanged for a pair of Cummins QSK19 engines, each developing 750 hp and meeting Stage IIIA emissions regulations. The present control equipment would be replaced by an NForce control system and driver interface from US supplier National Railway Equipment Co, for whom RVEL is a UK distributor.

Would the Cummins engines drive each bogie via a DMU type transmission, or are the two engines going to be driving an alternator as in a usual diesel electric loco?

 

[captainbigun]

If you take out all the multi-voltage equipment, there would probably be enough space inside a Class 92 for an MTU 12V 4000 (smaller than the 16V inside the HSTs) and a generator. That should give you about 2,000 hp on diesel (they can do more, but would probably be downrated), plus the usual 92 power on overhead, but would not be able to use 3rd rail any more. Working through the tunnel would be limited to trips down HS1 (unlikely). Still, 2,000 hp is probably enough to get a decent-length train up Lickey. Anyone know what a Class 40's maximum unassisted load was up there?

There's no multivoltage equipment as such in the 92s, it's just equipment capable of operating on 750/1500V DC and 25kV. (I can't recall whether they operate on 3kV DC as well). However's there's two of everything to allow operation through the tunnel. So ripping one set of kit out of a 92 renders then not suitable for the tunnel. 2k hp isn't going to move any decent load.

 

[Hydro]

There's no multivoltage equipment as such in the 92s, it's just equipment capable of operating on 750/1500V DC and 25kV. (I can't recall whether they operate on 3kV DC as well). However's there's two of everything to allow operation through the tunnel. So ripping one set of kit out of a 92 renders them not suitable for the tunnel. 2k hp isn't going to move any decent load.

I've always wondered if there was any mileage in creating a new subclass of UK only 92's by taking out the duplicated equipment and having a lighter, less maintenance intensive multipurpose AC loco.

 

[captainbigun]

That's not going to be simple or cheap and won't reduce the complexity as such. If there was the traffic then they'd be out of the stored lines sharpish. It also doesn't help that DBS have the monopoly.

 

[LE Greys]

There's no multivoltage equipment as such in the 92s, it's just equipment capable of operating on 750/1500V DC and 25kV. (I can't recall whether they operate on 3kV DC as well). However's there's two of everything to allow operation through the tunnel. So ripping one set of kit out of a 92 renders then not suitable for the tunnel. 2k hp isn't going to move any decent load.

I'm almost certain that 92s can operate on 3kV dc, and 1.5 kV dc. Presumably, that's the same system, just connected to different points on the same transformer. As for the load, I'm sure that Class 40s could shift quite a good deal, since they were used on heavy freights, although possibly not very quickly. Loads have probably increased since then, but speed is a much more important factor. Still, I would expect that the faster bits would be on electrified main lines, and that 2,000 hp would be perfectly adequate for plodding along at 45 mph on a fairly flat route. There is no real reason why starting tractive effort would be much lower, depending on alternator settings. The big problem, though, would be hills on diesel power. What kind of load could an unassisted Class 40 get up Lickey? I'm assuming that this loco has better traction control and a more favourable gear ratio, but a 40 makes a reasonable datum to start from.

I based the power spec on the MTU 12V 4000 R41 - 2,012 bhp. The R84 version gives 2,414 bhp, but that is bigger, and presumably has fewer parts in common with the HST version. The HST one is downrated, but I've decided it's best to leave the engine as it is, 1,851 bhp is far too low. Of course, I'd prefer to cram the HST version in, but the space is probably going to be too small. A V12 seems possible, but a V16 might be pushing it.

However, if someone has actually seen the inside of a 92 instead of working from diagrams, then perhaps they could let me know.