Class 93 Tri-mode Loco

[furnessvale]

Four axles vs the eight of a pair of 90s !. Poor knitting must be at its limit ?.

Do pairs of 90s actually have 8 axles live?

I seem to recall that at least initially, a pair of motors were isolated to reduce current draw on the OHLE.

 

[Unobrow]

Do pairs of 90s actually have 8 axles live?

I seem to recall that at least initially, a pair of motors were isolated to reduce current draw on the OHLE.

All powered. They did reduce the OHLE draw by isolating motors, but they do it electronically now to 8,000 I think, which can be isolated to give the full 10,000.

 

[hwl]

Quicker than a pair of 90s which is amazing stuff IMO!

The 90s are often ahead of schedule hence they don't need to go that fast there.

If you look though a couple of day running you will find some 90 timing that are hugely faster than the 93s.

Edit to add:
A pair of 90s on full power should manage Beattock - Beattock Summit in just over 8 minutes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Nov 2025 ==

Do pairs of 90s actually have 8 axles live?

I seem to recall that at least initially, a pair of motors were isolated to reduce current draw on the OHLE.

Up until ~5 years ago 2 motors were isolated (1 on each loco) but now the total current is limited if a multi working lead is plugged is plugged into the socket.

The default OHLE current limit per train is 300A which equates to 7.5MW available if the line voltage is 25kV.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Nov 2025 ==

Four axles vs the eight of a pair of 90s !. Poor knitting must be at its limit ?.

A Class 93 on full power in boost mode draws less current than either a 9 or 11car Pendolino so the knitting would have been no where near the limit.

As stated above the Class 90s are rarely pushed too hard (at night) as they can easily make up time over the whole schedule so they tend not to use full power for very long.

Many of the WCML electric freight limitings are based on relaxed power usage in a pair of Class 86s.

 

[Peter Sarf]

The 90s are often ahead of schedule hence they don't need to go that fast there.

If you look though a couple of day running you will find some 90 timing that are hugely faster than the 93s.

Edit to add:
A pair of 90s on full power should manage Beattock - Beattock Summit in just over 8 minutes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Nov 2025 ==


Up until ~5 years ago 2 motors were isolated (1 on each loco) but now the total current is limited if a multi working lead is plugged is plugged into the socket.

The default OHLE current limit per train is 300A which equates to 7.5MW available if the line voltage is 25kV.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Nov 2025 ==


A Class 93 on full power in boost mode draws less current than either a 9 or 11car Pendolino so the knitting would have been no where near the limit.

As stated above the Class 90s are rarely pushed too hard (at night) as they can easily make up time over the whole schedule so they tend not to use full power for very long.

Many of the WCML electric freight limitings are based on relaxed power usage in a pair of Class 86s.

My bold - makes sense.

Indeed a comparison with timings for the same train/load over the last few weeks would be more illuminating.

Suffice to say it looks like a 93 can cope.

 

[Class15]

It's all very well waxing lyrical about a single run, but how does it compare with a similar path with a pair of Class 90s on the front?

Clearly from your frequent posts on this thread you have something against ROG and the 93s, but it beat the pair of 90s used the previous night, in pretty bad weather conditions and with a 66 DIT too.

 

[hwl]

Clearly from your frequent posts on this thread you have something against ROG and the 93s, but it beat the pair of 90s used the previous night, in pretty bad weather conditions and with a 66 DIT too.

The class 90s don't need to be driven hard to meet timings hence saying the 93 beat the pair of 90s is like saying someone going for a run beat someone walking - it isn't a like for like comparison. Try searching RTT data for a 2x90 service that got delayed early in the journey or set off late from Crewe and is then trying to make up time and compare that to 93 timings on the hill climbs!

Peter summarised this very well when saying:

"Suffice to say it looks like a 93 can cope."

 

[kennythelad]

Anybody know what 93006’s return working will be, please?

 

[800001]

Anybody know what 93006’s return working will be, please?

4M30 tonight

 

[D1511]

4M30 tonight

Is it working all the way from Grangemouth, or is it being attached at Mossend?

 

[hwl]

Luckily last night was ideal for timing comparisons with a late running 2x 90 going for it:
The SRT for class 66 with 1600tonnes (containers) up Beattock is 31.5minutes and up Shap is 14minutes. (The base timing used for Class 93 run).
The default electric timings on the northern WCML is based on relaxed running with a pair of 86s is 13 minutes up Beattock and 7.5 minutes up Shap.

4S48 93 (running to Class 66 1600tonne timings)
4S48 went up Tebay ---> Shap Summit in 6 minutes (planned time 14 minutes)
4S48 went up Beattock --> Beattock Summit in 20 minutes (planned time 31.5 minutes)

4S47 DRS Class 88 (running early)
4S47 went up Tebay ---> Shap Summit in 4.75 minutes (planned time 7.5 minutes)
4S47 went up Beattock --> Beattock Summit in 13.5 minutes (planned time 13 minutes)

4S59 FL 2x Class 90, arrived at Crewe 147minutes late, diesel swapped for 2x90 with 30minute layover instead of the planned ~60mins and left 115 minutes late. I.e. the driver was trying to make up time and did - making up net 70minutes north of Crewe and only after getting a clear run north of Wigan, it initially lost another 6minutes so took out 76mins of lateness north of Wigan)
4S59 went up Tebay ---> Shap Summit in 4.75 minutes (planned time 7.5 minutes)
4S59 went up Beattock --> Beattock Summit in 9.75 minutes (planned time 13 minutes)

4S88 FL 2x Class 90,
4S88 went up Tebay ---> Shap Summit in 4.5 minutes (planned time 7.5 minutes)
4S88 went up Beattock --> Beattock Summit in 7.75 minutes (planned time 13 minutes)

The 93 didn't appear to beat anything hauled by other electric locos last night.

 

[kennythelad]

4M30 tonight

Thank you

 

[Nottingham59]

The 93 didn't appear to beat anything hauled by other electric locos last night.

Why would you expect it to? It's a 4MW locomotive, the same power as an 88 and less than the 2x3.7kW of two class 90s.

The business case for the 93 will depend on running costs.

• How does the track access charge for a single 93 compare to 2xClass 90?
• Significant time and therefore cost savings will come from not having to crawl into Crewe sidings for a loco change on routes like London Gateway to Mossend.
• Plus the benefits over running on AC from Thames Haven Junction to Crewe.
• And any savings from not needing a diesel shunter to move loads from electrified reception sidings to the unloading areas

2x Class 90, arrived at Crewe 147minutes late, diesel swapped for 2x90 with 30minute layover instead of the planned ~60mins

Compared to a few minutes stop for a 93 at the platform at Crewe station for a crew change.

 

[Unobrow]

Why would you expect it to? It's a 4MW locomotive, the same power as an 88 and less than the 2x3.7kW of two class 90s.

The business case for the 93 will depend on running costs.

• How does the track access charge for a single 93 compare to 2xClass 90?
• Significant time and therefore cost savings will come from not having to crawl into Crewe sidings for a loco change on routes like London Gateway to Mossend.
• Plus the benefits over running on AC from Thames Haven Junction to Crewe.
• And any savings from not needing a diesel shunter to move loads from electrified reception sidings to the unloading areas

Compared to a few minutes stop for a 93 at the platform at Crewe station for a crew change.

How far is it from the electrified junction into Gateway? We were discussing at work if the 93 on diesel would be up to it, not including the batteries in case they weren’t available as a worse case scenario.

 

[Nottingham59]

How far is it from the electrified junction into Gateway? We were discussing at work if the 93 on diesel would be up to it, not including the batteries in case they weren’t available as a worse case scenario.

It's 3-4 miles. And, unlike the climb out of Felixstowe, the route is nearly flat.

See the gradient profile here:

https://www.railwaydata.co.uk/linefiles/route/?ELR=THN

It's also double track and freight only, so it doesn't really matter how long it takes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Nov 2025 ==

EDIT
It's 6m rise from the port to get to the mainline. To lift a 1500t intermodal that height will need 6x15 = 90MJ of energy. A 900kW diesel engine can deliver that energy in 100 seconds. So the power of the engine is unlikely to be the limiting factor on that route.

 

[hwl]

Why would you expect it to?

Other were claiming it would (see previous page of comments and I was debunking again. But you understand maths well...

It's a 4MW locomotive, the same power as an 88 and less than the 2x3.7kW of two class 90s.

Class 93 = 4.0 in normal AC mode or 4.6MW boost mode for limited time period.
Class 90: the "3730kW" number often publicly cited refers to the worst case continuous rating in weak field mode which the locomotive transitions to / from above mid-80s mph speed range. While this might have been an applicable worst case assumption for intercity passenger running it isn't applicable for freight as it never goes that fast (and if that number was broadly applicable you wouldn't really have to worry about power limiting pairs of Class90s...). The maximum power at rail for the Class 90 is 5860kW at 68.3mph (freight applicable speed up the big hills) which is why there needs to be power limiting for running in pairs. The class 90 TE curve is not a simple constant power one, it is quite complicated especially when field weakening kicking in a higher speeds (above freight operating speeds).

The business case for the 93 will depend on running costs.

• How does the track access charge for a single 93 compare to 2xClass 90?

Or 1x Cl. 99 which has much lower axle loads.

• Significant time and therefore cost savings will come from not having to crawl into Crewe sidings for a loco change on routes like London Gateway to Mossend.
• Plus the benefits over running on AC from Thames Haven Junction to Crewe.

Thames Haven to Willesden in practice with 90s further north. For Felixstowe services, the 90s are tucked in behind at 66 to/from the Ipswich.

• And any savings from not needing a diesel shunter to move loads from electrified reception sidings to the unloading areas

Coatbridge is reverse the train in with the electric loco so no diesel shunter required currently. At Trafford Park there is effectively always a spare 66 available between arriving and departing on other services.

Compared to a few minutes stop for a 93 at the platform at Crewe station for a crew change.

Class 90s are cheap but Class 93s more efficient.

 

[Class15]

Luckily last night was ideal for timing comparisons with a late running 2x 90 going for it:
The SRT for class 66 with 1600tonnes (containers) up Beattock is 31.5minutes and up Shap is 14minutes. (The base timing used for Class 93 run).
The default electric timings on the northern WCML is based on relaxed running with a pair of 86s is 13 minutes up Beattock and 7.5 minutes up Shap.

4S48 93 (running to Class 66 1600tonne timings)
4S48 went up Tebay ---> Shap Summit in 6 minutes (planned time 14 minutes)
4S48 went up Beattock --> Beattock Summit in 20 minutes (planned time 31.5 minutes)

4S47 DRS Class 88 (running early)
4S47 went up Tebay ---> Shap Summit in 4.75 minutes (planned time 7.5 minutes)
4S47 went up Beattock --> Beattock Summit in 13.5 minutes (planned time 13 minutes)

4S59 FL 2x Class 90, arrived at Crewe 147minutes late, diesel swapped for 2x90 with 30minute layover instead of the planned ~60mins and left 115 minutes late. I.e. the driver was trying to make up time and did - making up net 70minutes north of Crewe and only after getting a clear run north of Wigan, it initially lost another 6minutes so took out 76mins of lateness north of Wigan)
4S59 went up Tebay ---> Shap Summit in 4.75 minutes (planned time 7.5 minutes)
4S59 went up Beattock --> Beattock Summit in 9.75 minutes (planned time 13 minutes)

4S88 FL 2x Class 90,
4S88 went up Tebay ---> Shap Summit in 4.5 minutes (planned time 7.5 minutes)
4S88 went up Beattock --> Beattock Summit in 7.75 minutes (planned time 13 minutes)

The 93 didn't appear to beat anything hauled by other electric locos last night.

4S59 and 4S88 are extremely unfair comparisons as these split at Crewe and are not full length!

 

[Nottingham59]

Class 90: the "3730kW" number often publicly cited refers to the worst case continuous rating in weak field mode which the locomotive transitions to / from above mid-80s mph speed range. While this might have been an applicable worst case assumption for intercity passenger running it isn't applicable for freight as it never goes that fast (and if that number was broadly applicable you wouldn't really have to worry about power limiting pairs of Class90s...). The maximum power at rail for the Class 90 is 5860kW at 68.3mph (freight applicable speed up the big hills) which is why there needs to be power limiting for running in pairs.

Thanks for that information. I hadn't appreciated how much more power the 90 can deliver at typical freight speeds. Makes me wonder why Freightliner run them in pairs?

 

[hwl]

4S59 and 4S88 are extremely unfair comparisons as these split at Crewe and are not full length!

What was the exact consist for 4S48? Intermodal can be very variable.
At low speeds a single Class 93 will beat a single class 90 on TE but at mid-high freight speeds a single 90 has more TE than a 93. A pair of 90s always has better TE at any speed than a 93. The question is how much better the pair of 90s perform than single 93 not whether they do.
The 93s are much more efficient though.

The 93s were designed for the trying to eek out extra paths on the ECML in between passenger services not to maximise tonnage per train on the the hills on the WCML/MML (which the 99s are).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Nov 2025 ==

Thanks for that information. I hadn't appreciated how much more power the 90 can deliver at typical freight speeds. Makes me wonder why Freightliner run them in pairs?

The 90 TE and adhesion at low speeds isn't great (big changes in TE when notching up) which is solved by having two locos and rheostatic braking (with/without setspeed) is far better with 2 locos. They will sometimes operate with single 90s south of Crewe (to Ipswich / Willesden)
DRS struggle with 88/68s on the big WCML hills in autumn with 4 axles locos so they double up as well. The solution is 6 axles as the 66s prove usually managing fine in autumn on the same hills.

 

[ac6000cw]

Its the trickery for the computer controlled anti slip i bet - driver keeps the power in and the computer does the rest.

It's not trickery - it's just good engineering, and computer-based wheelslip control is standard in any vaguely modern mainline locomotive (and has been for several decades e.g. the class 60s had it in 1989).

 

[Harlequinuk]

#freightliner #freightliner #freightliner #freightliner #themalcolmgroup #innovationinmotion | Freightliner Ltd

Yesterday, #Freightliner, Rail Operations Group and The Malcolm Group led a ground-breaking Class 93 trial from Daventry up to Grangemouth and Mossend in Scotland. This is the first freight movement of intermodal containers using a Class 93 locomotive to take place on the rail network. The...

www.linkedin.com

LinkedIn post from Freightliner re the run last night

 

[AndrewE]

#freightliner #freightliner #freightliner #freightliner #themalcolmgroup #innovationinmotion | Freightliner Ltd

Yesterday, #Freightliner, Rail Operations Group and The Malcolm Group led a ground-breaking Class 93 trial from Daventry up to Grangemouth and Mossend in Scotland. This is the first freight movement of intermodal containers using a Class 93 locomotive to take place on the rail network. The...

www.linkedin.com

LinkedIn post from Freightliner re the run last night

I like the image which illustrates the Freightliner post:

 

[Mollman]

I am not sure why people are getting so worked up about comparing 93s to 90s. I would guess that if Freightliner were to hire 93s it would be to supplement 90s not replace them.

 

[Trainman40083]

I am not sure why people are getting so worked up about comparing 93s to 90s. I would guess that if Freightliner were to hire 93s it would be to supplement 90s not replace them.

Maybe replace 66s, if it provides the solution... Trunk haul on electric, final mile on diesel etc

 

[littledude]

Maybe replace 66s, if it provides the solution... Trunk haul on electric, final mile on diesel etc

They’re still going to need a solution for the Felixstowe branch, as well as all trains from Southampton. If the 93s can do away with the scandalous use of diesel under the wires along the WCML though, then that’s good!

 

[hwl]

I am not sure why people are getting so worked up about comparing 93s to 90s. I would guess that if Freightliner were to hire 93s it would be to supplement 90s not replace them.

Maybe replace 66s, if it provides the solution... Trunk haul on electric, final mile on diesel etc

Exactly!
Gateway - Trafford Park or Wentloog - Felixstowe (comparatively light loads) are obvious candidates. Given there are only 10 Class 93.

 

[Trainman40083]

Exactly!
Gateway - Trafford Park or Wentloog - Felixstowe (comparatively light loads) are obvious candidates. Given there are only 10 Class 93.

Gateway certainly

 

[Nottingham59]

Exactly! Gateway - Trafford Park or Wentloog - Felixstowe (comparatively light loads) are obvious candidates. Given there are only 10 Class 93.

I can see them being used also on relatively flat unwired freight routes like Peterborough-Spalding-Doncaster where there is little passenger traffic to force them into loops.

 

[Class15]

I can see them being used also on relatively flat unwired freight routes like Peterborough-Spalding-Doncaster where there is little passenger traffic to force them into loops.

But I don’t see this being more advantageous than Getaway/Tilbury - WCML runs which spend almost all the time under the wires…

Gateway - Trafford Park 3x daily
Gateway - Ditton 1x daily
Gateway - Garston 1x daily
Tilbury - Trafford Park 1x daily

Plus the Malcolm workings, that’s 8 out of 10 used up. Can’t quite see that so something will probably have to give.

 

[hwl]

But I don’t see this being more advantageous than Getaway/Tilbury - WCML runs which spend almost all the time under the wires…

Gateway - Trafford Park 3x daily
Gateway - Ditton 1x daily
Gateway - Garston 1x daily
Tilbury - Trafford Park 1x daily

Plus the Malcolm workings, that’s 8 out of 10 used up. Can’t quite see that so something will probably have to give.

Some could be split with Gateway - Willesden shuttles?

Garston doesn't need diesel at the Northern end for example and for Trafford Park there is always a 66/70 lurking.

 

[Numbskull100]

Tonight's 4m30 is 1760t, so plenty extra weight over last night. Going ok so far.