UIC registered wagons don’t have a domestic number allocated (for the most part) and TOPS copes just fine with 12 digit numbers. A consist for a train with UIC wagons will show 10 digits, omitting the first 2 digits (the exchange code)
Apologies I thought it was discussing specifically locos not all rolling stock in general.
As per the aforementioned Rail Magazine article, the /4 subclass is being mooted for ETS equipped Class 99s.
The architecture used across the European, Chinese and Japanese electric (or multimode) locomotive OEMs is to have split electrical systems with one DC bus per end / bogie (providing redundancy, there is some cross feed capacity between the two) with 2 or 3 secondary taps feeding each end (providing redundancy, the number depending on total power and optimising transformer cooling rather than being Bo-Bo or Co-Co related), an extra tap for ETS (no redundancy) and the locomotive auxiliary loads being dual fed from both DC buses under normal conditions.
With a full 16 coach sleeper on diesel it would result in Class 25 level traction performance due to ETS loads, probably not good idea. It will more than keep the lights and HVAC on though.
But don't bother with the downhill bits?The obvious solution to that is to electrify the uphill sections
It's not letting me add a smiley!
It is. The poster was on about diversions on diesel.
It is but ac6000cw raised the point about diversions in post #720 on the previous page.
I'm talking about the load 16 on diversion scenario.
Just how big would that load be, please?
Exactly but it would be painfully slow in places.
See hwl's post upthread - the answer is 'yes'.
I guess that in the event of a planned diversion (of a full 16-car train) that involved substantial off-wire haulage they might add a 66 on the front, as the 99 has AAR MU capability?
Based on what I can find, a class 47 is around 2100hp (1565kW) power-at-rail (over the medium-speed range - it falls off over about 75mph).
Very sure
It would and the 99 will be comparatively less impacted providing the same ETS loads slightly more efficiently, hence starting off looking at the traction only impact first.
Apparently they are there as it is a very high security yard, unlike Peterborough, to avoid any graffiti attacks!
Thank you for replying, I appreciate that. As soon as I see a path that appears to suggest their next move I'll post it here, unless someone else beats me to it.
This is surprising, since they don't seem to have anything else in the fleet capable of replacing them, least of all the 99s. Are they planning on giving up the contracts currently serviced by these?
This is presumably where the re-gearing of class 66s comes in. Existing thread for that topic: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/gbrf-class-66-re-gearing.285993/
Which particular flows are you thinking of? The Drax-Tyne trains are often diagrammed for Class 66s anyhow and there was no increase in weight on the stone trains out of Rylstone when they switched back to Class 60s. Other than the stone trains out of Horton, I’m struggling to think of any GBRf flows that Class 60s have worked exclusively. Presumably if the Horton trains are beyond a regular Class 66 then a re-geared Class 66 would be capable.
Maybe so but this forum has a team of moderators and admin to decide on things like this. If you are unhappy with posts being made, report them