GBRf Class 99 - 30 locomotives now ordered

[Wyrleybart]

I might ne wrong here but should the class 99 graphics be class 93 ?
AFAIK the class 99 has yet to venture over the fells yet ?

 

[InOban]

I know that further deliveries have been substantially delayed by flood damage to the factory in valencia. Is there any indication of a revised schedule?

 

[ac6000cw]

I know that further deliveries have been substantially delayed by flood damage to the factory in valencia. Is there any indication of a revised schedule?

See the end of this post - https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/gbrf-class-99-30-locomotives-now-ordered.228787/post-7443476

 

[Nottingham59]

I might ne wrong here but should the class 99 graphics be class 93 ?
AFAIK the class 99 has yet to venture over the fells yet ?

I assume the graph is derived from modelling performance, rather than observations. A class 93 on AC (4000kW) would have a curve close to the class 88 which has the same power under the wires.

 

[Tirov]

Would anyone know whether these beasts have any work lined up?

 

[Wyrleybart]

Would anyone know whether these beasts have any work lined up?

Your guess is as good as all of ours
Seriously though, GBRf have spoken and outlined the reason for acquiring their fleet of bi mode 99s. ROG however seem to have changed their stance. Pretty sure the original plans were stated to replace the class 37s and class 57s, but the class 57s were released before the 93s arrived. There have been various non specific mentions of work for the class which I believe was to be a minimum of thirty (options on 011-030) subject to business requirements. Not sure whether the class has been officially signed off by Network Rail but they do appear to operate light loco solo trips - Tyseley and Newark for example.

 

[zwk500]

Not sure whether the class has been officially signed off by Network Rail but they do appear to operate light loco solo trips - Tyseley and Newark for example.

No sign of Class 99 authorisation on the ORR website https://www.orr.gov.uk/guidance-compliance/rail/health-safety/laws/interoperability/authorisations

GBRf will not have ordered the locos without a good idea of what they want to use them on.

 

[Nottingham59]

Would anyone know whether these beasts have any work lined up?

Do GBRf have any intermodal routes that are diesel hauled from the port to Crewe, and then swapped for electric haulage up the WCML to Scotland? That would be the sort of path that would deliver immediate savings. Otherwise, any routes that currently use diesel for long distances under the wires - there are plenty of those, but straight swaps with a 66 won't necessarily generate immediate cost savings.

The competitive advantage for the 99 will come from being able to find paths on busy mainlines that would not be available for diesel traction. I'd expect GBRf will be looking very hard at the freight paths that were squeezed out of the ECML 2025 timetable to make way for passenger traffic, and which might become available again with a 6000kW electric loco on the front instead of a 1850kW class 66.

EDIT:
A straight swap for a 66 could of course generate additional revenue with longer trains. If a diesel-hauled intermodal over Shap is limited to, say, 1250 tonnes for performance reasons, then a 99 should be able to haul a full-length 1800t load in the same path, generating 50% more revenue per train, if the demand is there.

 

[ac6000cw]

I assume the graph is derived from modelling performance, rather than observations.

It's from the RSSB T1301 - Phase 1 report document (Page 92, Figure 33) that hwl mentioned in posts #898 and #900 - it doesn't explicitly say if it's derived from modelling or not, but my assumption is that it is (the Cl. 99 data can't be anything else, for sure, especially as the report is dated March 2025). You have to register on the RSSB website (free) to download the report - it's worth reading the 'Key learnings and recommendations' section at the end if you don't want to wade through all 111 pages (but there is a load of info in there on starting and rolling train resistances which you might find interesting).

From the report (Figure 33 is the graph, and SRT = Sectional Running Times):

Generally, the modelled timings are very close to the observed timings, with the exception of the impact of
entering and exiting sidings. Here the SRTs do not consider the acceleration/slowing of the train and so more
time is required. There is a very interesting comparison between the timing differences of different traction; see
Figure 33 below.

Figure 33 shows the dramatic difference in high-speed tractive effort between electric and diesel locomotives.
Both the Class 66 and Class 70 locomotives decelerate significantly over Grayrigg and Shap, whereas the paired
Class 90s and the Class 99 barely slow down.

 

[zwk500]

Do GBRf have any intermodal routes that are diesel hauled from the port to Crewe, and then swapped for electric haulage up the WCML to Scotland? That would be the sort of path that would deliver immediate savings. Otherwise, any routes that currently use diesel for long distances under the wires - there are plenty of those, but straight swaps with a 66 won't necessarily generate immediate cost savings.

Realtime Trains | 4O46 0310 Trafford Pk Euro Tml Gbrf to Southampton W Docks (Gbrf) | 04/09/2025

Real-time train running information for 4O46 0310 departure from Trafford Pk Euro Tml Gbrf to Southampton W Docks (Gbrf) on 04/09/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Something like this Trafford Park - Southampton, which is on the wires from Manchester to Coventry?

 

[43096]

Realtime Trains | 4O46 0310 Trafford Pk Euro Tml Gbrf to Southampton W Docks (Gbrf) | 04/09/2025

Real-time train running information for 4O46 0310 departure from Trafford Pk Euro Tml Gbrf to Southampton W Docks (Gbrf) on 04/09/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Something like this Trafford Park - Southampton, which is on the wires from Manchester to Coventry?

Or this Felixstowe to Trafford Park, where it is under the wires from Ipswich.

Realtime Trains | 4M22 1026 Felixstowe South Gbrf to Trafford Pk Euro Tml Gbrf | 04/09/2025

Real-time train running information for 4M22 1026 departure from Felixstowe South Gbrf to Trafford Pk Euro Tml Gbrf on 04/09/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[Class15]

Do GBRf have any intermodal routes that are diesel hauled from the port to Crewe, and then swapped for electric haulage up the WCML to Scotland?

Nope - it’s Freightliner that do this, not GBRf. GB do not really have electric freight locos at the moment (2 class 92s used on Channel Tunnel and that’s it)

 

[Nottingham59]

Realtime Trains | 4O46 0310 Trafford Pk Euro Tml Gbrf to Southampton W Docks (Gbrf) | 04/09/2025

Real-time train running information for 4O46 0310 departure from Trafford Pk Euro Tml Gbrf to Southampton W Docks (Gbrf) on 04/09/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Something like this Trafford Park - Southampton, which is on the wires from Manchester to Coventry?

Yes, though that route doesn't include big hills under the wires where the 99 will have an advantage. But what is really interesting is that GBRf don't have any destinations out of Southampton that go north of Manchester/Doncaster.

Or out of Gateway, as you can see here:

Realtime Trains | Departures from London Gateway Gbrf all day on 04/09/2025

Train information at London Gateway Gbrf all day on 04/09/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

I expect GBRf can't compete with Freightliner with their twin-headed class 90s to Scotland. Until now, of course. It would be fascinating to see the relative costs of a single 99 versus Freightliner's 66/twin90 combination for a path like this one from Southampton to Coatbridge.

Realtime Trains | 4S59 1457 Southampton M.C.T. to Coatbridge F.L.T. | 03/09/2025

Real-time train running information for 4S59 1457 departure from Southampton M.C.T. to Coatbridge F.L.T. on 03/09/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[ac6000cw]

GB do not really have electric freight locos at the moment (2 class 92s used on Channel Tunnel and that’s it)

...plus the (seven?) normally used for sleeper haulage, of which I suppose a few theoretically could be made available for for other duties at certain times of the day (but I guess there's only a small pool of GBRf drivers that sign them, which might make that harder to do/not worth it).

 

[Trainbike46]

Nope - it’s Freightliner that do this, not GBRf. GB do not really have electric freight locos at the moment (2 class 92s used on Channel Tunnel and that’s it)

They also operate 92s on the Caledonian Sleeper, so they have around 9 92s in service.

The very limited amount of electric traction GBRf currently has makes very clear that the 99s will be used either for traffic growth or for replacing diesel locomotives, not instead of existing electric traction.

...plus the (seven?) normally used for sleeper haulage, of which I suppose a few theoretically could be made available for for other duties at certain times of the day (but I guess there's only a small pool of GBRf drivers that sign them, which might make that harder to do/not worth it).

according to Wikipedia, GBRf own 16 92s, of which 4 are stored, and 7 are dedicated to sleeper service (in CS livery).

That would give a remaining 5 for other services, like through the channel tunnel (and as spares for CS, the sleeper does occasionally get hauled by GBRf-liveried 92s).

16 is probably not enough to train many of their drivers on them, then again it is far from the smallest fleet GBRf have!

 

[Wyrleybart]

Realtime Trains | 4O46 0310 Trafford Pk Euro Tml Gbrf to Southampton W Docks (Gbrf) | 04/09/2025

Real-time train running information for 4O46 0310 departure from Trafford Pk Euro Tml Gbrf to Southampton W Docks (Gbrf) on 04/09/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Something like this Trafford Park - Southampton, which is on the wires from Manchester to Coventry?

And that poses the next question.
Would GBRf be allowed to raise the pan on the move from say Ocford or Didcot to Southcote junction and vice versa ? Ot would obviously be a waste of energy and brake pads to stop for a pan raise, especially if the trains are scheduled through the section on clear signals. The acceleration of a heavy intermodal along the busy main lines would be so much more rapid from the 25kV.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Sep 2025 ==

Yes, though that route doesn't include big hills under the wires where the 99 will have an advantage. But what is really interesting is that GBRf don't have any destinations out of Southampton that go north of Manchester/Doncaster.

Or out of Gateway, as you can see here:

Realtime Trains | Departures from London Gateway Gbrf all day on 04/09/2025

Train information at London Gateway Gbrf all day on 04/09/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

I expect GBRf can't compete with Freightliner with their twin-headed class 90s to Scotland. Until now, of course. It would be fascinating to see the relative costs of a single 99 versus Freightliner's 66/twin90 combination for a path like this one from Southampton to Coatbridge.

Yes, though that route doesn't include big hills under the wires where the 99 will have an advantage. But what is really interesting is that GBRf don't have any destinations out of Southampton that go north of Manchester/Doncaster.

Or out of Gateway, as you can see here:

Realtime Trains | Departures from London Gateway Gbrf all day on 04/09/2025

Train information at London Gateway Gbrf all day on 04/09/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

I expect GBRf can't compete with Freightliner with their twin-headed class 90s to Scotland. Until now, of course. It would be fascinating to see the relative costs of a single 99 versus Freightliner's 66/twin90 combination for a path like this one from Southampton to Coatbridge.

Realtime Trains | 4S59 1457 Southampton M.C.T. to Coatbridge F.L.T. | 03/09/2025

Real-time train running information for 4S59 1457 departure from Southampton M.C.T. to Coatbridge F.L.T. on 03/09/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

But the class 99 will give GBRf a huge competitive advantage for Gateway paths provided they can raise the pantograph on the junction. The 99 should accelerate a train away very much more briskly than a 66 or 70 once on the mainline in the middle of the EMUs. I imagine Network Rail would reward Bimode operators with better pathing for that.

Personally think we are only at the preface to the book about class 99s in the UK and lots to come.

 

[Trainbike46]

And that poses the next question.
Would GBRf be allowed to raise the pan on the move from say Ocford or Didcot to Southcote junction and vice versa ? Ot would obviously be a waste of energy and brake pads to stop for a pan raise, especially if the trains are scheduled through the section on clear signals. The acceleration of a heavy intermodal along the busy main lines would be so much more rapid from the 25kV.

It would be very surprising if the 99s couldn't raise the pantograph in the locations where the 80x currently do so on the move, the balises are in place, the OHLE is designed for it, so why not?

 

[Wyrleybart]

It would be very surprising if the 99s couldn't raise the pantograph in the locations where the 80x currently do so on the move, the balises are in place, the OHLE is designed for it, so why not?

I tend to agree with you, but have GBRf had the kit installed in the 99s to do that ?

 

[Trainbike46]

I tend to agree with you, but have GBRf had the kit installed in the 99s to do that ?

I don't have the knowledge to confirm, but it would be a very weird thing to leave out

 

[BorderCollie]

Would anyone know whether these beasts have any work lined up?

GBRf published a list of traffic earlier in the spring they want to see hauled by 99s next year, and included a formal application to NR who had to go away and check OHLE/electricity capacity etc... Of interest to me locally is the Blyth - Fort William Alcan job.

 

[Class73Electro]

GBRf published a list of traffic earlier in the spring they want to see hauled by 99s next year, and included a formal application to NR who had to go away and check OHLE/electricity capacity etc... Of interest to me locally is the Blyth - Fort William Alcan job.

Don't suppose anywhere south was on the list?

 

[ac6000cw]

The GA 755s can do moving changeovers between OHLE and diesel at several places in East Anglia, AFAIK using just driver control - see this post: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...lass-755s-regional-trains.148431/post-6568206 . So I assume (at lower speeds, at least) having APCO isn't always necessary for moving changeovers.

The bi-mode trains, known as ‘class 755s’ can run using either diesel or electricity from the overhead wires – but previously were restricted to changing over their power supply in station platforms.

Thanks to special zones that have recently been put in place on the network, drivers can press a button to allow the power supply to change between diesel and electric while on the move. This will save at least 91,000 litres of diesel a year, as well as stopping more than 240,000 kilograms of co2 being emitted – enough to power more than 30 homes for a year.

The power supply can now be changed on the move at four locations:

• Ely North Junction, on the line between Norwich and Cambridge
• Haughley Junction near Stowmarket, on the route between Ipswich and Cambridge/Peterborough
• Lakenham near Norwich heading towards Ipswich
• Marks Tey coming on and off the branch line for Sudbury for trains coming to/from the stabling and maintenance point at Colchester

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Sep 2025 ==

Don't suppose anywhere south was on the list?

The list on this thread was from an ORR report related to the ECML, so only listed services that used the ECML along the way:

2.3 GBRF Class 99 Paths

A full list of freight services is included in section 7.2 Appendix A2 (List of Freight Train
Details) of the main report. A summary of the proposed paths is listed below

1. Doncaster iPort - Mossend via ECML
2. Tilbury Docks - Wakefield
3. North Blyth - Fort William
4. London Gateway - Doncaster iPort/ Masborough
5. Whitemoor - Hoo Jcn
6. Tyne Docks - Drax - via Durham Coast - Option 10
7. Tyne Docks - Drax via ECML – Option 10A & 10B
8. Rylstone - Hull Dairycoates

 

[Class73Electro]

The GA 755s can do moving changeovers between OHLE and diesel at several places in East Anglia, AFAIK using just driver control - see this post: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...lass-755s-regional-trains.148431/post-6568206 . So I assume (at lower speeds, at least) having APCO isn't always necessary for moving changeovers.



== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Sep 2025 ==


The list on this thread was from an ORR report related to the ECML, so only listed services that used the ECML along the way:

Thanks

 

[50002Superb]

They also operate 92s on the Caledonian Sleeper, so they have around 9 92s in service.

The very limited amount of electric traction GBRf currently has makes very clear that the 99s will be used either for traffic growth or for replacing diesel locomotives, not instead of existing electric traction.


according to Wikipedia, GBRf own 16 92s, of which 4 are stored, and 7 are dedicated to sleeper service (in CS livery).

That would give a remaining 5 for other services, like through the channel tunnel (and as spares for CS, the sleeper does occasionally get hauled by GBRf-liveried 92s).

16 is probably not enough to train many of their drivers on them, then again it is far from the smallest fleet GBRf have!

They also have some 73s?

 

[Class73Electro]

They also have some 73s?

GBRf? If so quite a few

 

[50002Superb]

GBRf? If so quite a few

Yep

 

[DBS92042]

They also operate 92s on the Caledonian Sleeper, so they have around 9 92s in service.

The very limited amount of electric traction GBRf currently has makes very clear that the 99s will be used either for traffic growth or for replacing diesel locomotives, not instead of existing electric traction.


according to Wikipedia, GBRf own 16 92s, of which 4 are stored, and 7 are dedicated to sleeper service (in CS livery).

That would give a remaining 5 for other services, like through the channel tunnel (and as spares for CS, the sleeper does occasionally get hauled by GBRf-liveried 92s).

16 is probably not enough to train many of their drivers on them, then again it is far from the smallest fleet GBRf have!

All of the GBRf 92s (besides 032 and 044 for Channel Tunnel work) are used on the Caledonian Sleeper so no regular freight use anymore for them. These being 006 (long term stopped for repairs)/010/014/018/020/023/028/033/038/043. 021/040/045/046 are spares donors

 

[norbitonflyer]

Watching the intermodals rolling through Ely, they tend to be either fully (or almost fully) loaded or partially loaded but with the containers grouped in blocks e.g. a block at the front and/or rear of a train then the rest of it empty. Maybe they do this to reduce the aerodynamic drag, compared to having a more 'distributed' container loading pattern? Or maybe it just happens that way to reduce the amount of terminal crane movement needed?

In the latest Modrern Railways, Ian Walmisley suggests (page 45) that 100mph intermodal running might require gaps between boxes to be filled with empty ones to improve the aerodynamics. Loading and unloading these would of course increase time at the terminals, but it would be worth it to allow the trains to fit in better with passenger workings.

Ther article describes a test run of a Class 93 over Shap (2152 tonnes , summit reached at 54mph on a wet night) and he reckons a four axle 93 is adequate - the extra tractive effort of the 99's two extra axles isn't needed, as longer trains can't fit in loops and speed is the way to better capacity and, for speed, power is more important than tractive effort. As he observes, four axles are used for heavier trains in Europe.

However, another article - page 12 - has GBRf saying six axles is essential, as he has known four-axle locos stall on Shap.

Yet another article (page 59) discusses both classes' suitability for the Night Riviera (although the big question there is not replacement of the 57s but of the mark 3 stock they haul). The GWR CEO considers neither is ideal - reckons the power of a 93 isn't sufficient for the - non-electrified - Devon banks (1740hp on battery and diesel combioned, 1200hp on diesel alone) whaeras the 99 has 2400 on diesel (still less than a 57), but no batteries, which Long Rock depot's neighbours want as they don't like the noise of diesels.

 

[ac6000cw]

In the latest Modern Railways, Ian Walmisley suggests (page 45) that 100mph intermodal running might require gaps between boxes to be filled with empty ones to improve the aerodynamics. Loading and unloading these would of course increase time at the terminals, but it would be worth it to allow the trains to fit in better with passenger workings.

The article describes a test run of a Class 93 over Shap (2152 tonnes , summit reached at 54mph on a wet night) and he reckons a four axle 93 is adequate - the extra tractive effort of the 99's two extra axles isn't needed, as longer trains can't fit in loops and speed is the way to better capacity and, for speed, power is more important than tractive effort. As he observes, four axles are used for heavier trains in Europe.

However, another article - page 12 - has GBRf saying six axles is essential, as he has known four-axle locos stall on Shap.

The northbound run, with a final 4.5 mile 1 in 75 climb to the summit, topped it at 38mph. It was 54mph southbound, which has shallower gradients.

See hwl's comment in post #878 regarding the class 93 test runs:

That was with aggregate wagons, the aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance is comparatively higher for intermodal wagons for the same tonnage

Also if you're interested, the RSSB T1301 - Phase 1 report document that hwl has mentioned before has data on train resistances and aerodynamic drag for different types of freight rolling stock, both loaded and empty.

Basically the loaded, low-profile, JNA ballast wagons that the class 93 was hauling (as per the photo the MR article) have somewhat lower aerodynamic drag than loaded intermodal wagons, and for the same trailing load there will be rather fewer axles in the train versus intermodal, so the cl. 93 tests were almost a 'best case' situation for a loaded train of that weight.

This isn't to detract from the performance of the 93 (which is excellent for a modern 4-axle electric loco), but there are good reasons why FL uses pairs of 90s and DRS limits the 88s to 1400t (and sometimes has to double-head/reduce loads in adverse conditions) over Shap - a quote from the class 93 thread:

Circa 2000t should be a sensible limit in good conditions albeit with very slow timings. The issue as the DRS 88 have frequently shown is that conditions especially on damp Autumn nights frequently aren't good.
On Shap and Beattock the section timings (for a clear rolling run) will get noticeably longer with increasing trailing load before failure/inability to restart.
The boost function on the 93s (if used) will help with more TE at medium and higher speeds compared to the 88s but not at low speed with adhesion issues (at low speed the solution is more axles e.g. either a second 93 as you will be under the OHLE current limit till ~25mph with a pair or a 99 or a pair of 90s).

The wagon resistance will be worse for intermodal but these these will almost certainly have been about sustained TE delivery in practice before further testing.

 

[Harlequinuk]

In the latest Modrern Railways, Ian Walmisley suggests (page 45) that 100mph intermodal running might require gaps between boxes to be filled with empty ones to improve the aerodynamics. Loading and unloading these would of course increase time at the terminals, but it would be worth it to allow the trains to fit in better with passenger workings.

Why not canvas curtains, which wouldnt take long to raise or lower?