GBRf Class 99 - 30 locomotives now ordered

[cj_1985]

So what's needed now, in my head anyway, is for a 99 to haul a full out and back service from Felixstowe on 66 timings... before a move to any 99 timings

 

[Unobrow]

But does any one know the actual container weights? Most container services are lighter than the wagon max weights would permit, hence surely those numbers are the maximum they could be and in reality the train would be lighter than the maximum?
I could actually be quite tricky to find enough heavily loaded containers to get on one train with out delaying some.

Edit to add:
The video posted by @Harlequinuk shows are reasonable number of 20' containers and empty spots which suggest it might not have been that heavy a loading of containers, the 3 extra trailing locos adding some weight but with less overall resistance than the equivalent weight in containers.

Yes the individual container weights are known. They couldn’t make the consist up otherwise if it was a guess the weight game lol.

 

[hwl]

Yes the individual container weights are known. They couldn’t make the consist up otherwise if it was a guess the weight game lol.

I meant publicly known not just to GBRf and then input into various systems.

The timings use already available ones hence the timing tonnages tend to be higher than real weights.

 

[GB]

I meant publicly known not just to GBRf and then input into various systems.

The people that need to know the weight already do.

 

[Adrian Barr]

But does any one know the actual container weights?

The weights I've quoted are based on the TOPS consists which include the actual container weights (provided by the container terminal during loading). The actual container weights are required to be input to TOPS to avoid overloading individual wagons - for example, 3 max weight 20ft containers on one 60ft FEA would overload it by 25 tons, damaging the wagon suspension and potentially causing an accident.

Out of curiosity, yesterday I worked out the weight of containers loaded on the test formation, as I wondered how they'd managed to achieve such a heavy train. The formation of 24 wagons (as used on 4Q28 yesterday) had 782 tons of containers. Many of the containers were close to maximum weight, around 29 tons.

The full formation of 36 wagons had a total of 1248 tons of containers (an average of ~35 tons per wagon).

Yesterday's 4Q05 18:01 Ipswich Yard - Peterborough Yard ran with the same 4 locos and 36 intermodal wagons used on the Felixstowe branch, although I'm not sure what order the locos were in.

66301 then worked 4D08 06:10 Peterborough Yard - Doncaster Iport this morning and is now on 4L08 13:40 Doncaster Iport - London Gateway. This is a similar 36 wagon formation (FEAs and FWAs) to the test formation.

66721 is now en route with the test wagons (with FEA 640667 added back into the formation to make it a 37 wagon set) to London Gateway as 4Z98 10:24 Peterborough Yard - London Gateway.

99002 is still at Peterborough while 99001 has worked 0Q17 / 0Q18 to Doncaster Down Decoy and back (as per post #1288)

It could actually be quite tricky to find enough heavily loaded containers to get on one train with out delaying some.

4L08 and 4Z98 make a good comparison as they have a similar mix of wagons and the traffic on both originated from Doncaster Iport for London Gateway.

4L08 has a trailing weight of 1685 tons (timing load is 1600 tons) which is unusually heavy for a train of export containers. This works out at about 937 tons of containers, about 26 tons per wagon.

4Z98 (with the wagons used on the Felixstowe tests) has a trailing weight of 2059 tons - less than the trailing tonnage on the trials because part of the dead weight was from hauling 3 locos.
If you subtract the weight of the extra wagon added to 4Z98 at Peterborough (69 tons) and add the weight of 2 x 66 (at 127 tons each) + 1 x 99 at 113 tons, you get the 2357 trailing weight I quoted yesterday for the 36 wagon formation on 4Q30; if indeed 99001 was working solo on that one - it certainly seems to be in the videos of 4Q28.

2059 tons trailing load would be abnormally heavy for a container train in regular service, with some exceptions like container specials run from Scunthorpe in previous years conveying steel products for export. The weight is normally kept below the timing load (which is usually no more than 1600 tons), or at least not too far above it...

I think the heaviest consist I've noted coming out of Felixstowe was something like 1821 tons on a Felixstowe - Trafford Park Freightliner service, but this is unusual.

4Z98 was timed to take about 2 hours from Peterborough to Finsbury Park today with a 1600 ton timing load, averaging about 40 mph for the 76 miles with only one planned stop at Peterborough. Due to these generous timings on a relatively flat route (identical to the normal 4L98 WTT schedule), the extra weight hasn't caused much issue, with a 14 minute delay around Huntingdon due to regulation - presumably held in Connington loop - and arrival at Finsbury Park only 1 minute late.

I think the weight of containers on the test formation was clearly not left to chance (about 400 tons heavier than the typical timing load for a container train), but there was already a lot of heavy export traffic available on the Doncaster Iport - London Gateway route judging from the consist of 4L08.

 

[47286Dan]

Monday afternoon update

99001 out on the ECML today

99001 MBEL DONCDNDCY 230Q181J16 F PBOROSDGB B

Dan

 

[Nottingham59]

So what conclusions can be drawn from these trials?

Has the 99 proved that it can outperform, or at least match, the performance of a class 66 off the wires, including the crucial hill out of Felixstowe?

 

[Adrian Barr]

So what conclusions can be drawn from these trials?

The trial with 1650 tons trailing in the rain out of Felixstowe behind 99001 is encouraging, although the potential timings compared to a 66 are hard to gauge from TRUST or RTT as the train departed late and was held up due to regulation for other trains on the branch. This is as heavy as any intermodal train it would potentially work from Felixstowe is likely to get.

I'm curious whether the trial out of Felixstowe with the full 36-wagon consist was hauled by 99001 working solo - if so, that would be 2357 tons trailing on diesel and an impressive performance. Hopefully GBRF will put out some kind of news snippet or press release to say how the loco performed and clarify what it pulled.

 

[99009]

Yesterday's 4Q05 18:01 Ipswich Yard - Peterborough Yard ran with the same 4 locos and 36 intermodal wagons used on the Felixstowe branch, although I'm not sure what order the locos were in.

This video suggests the order of 4Q05 was 66301+99002+99001 at the front and 66721 at the rear. I say suggests instead of confirms because it's not possible to read the 99's at that speed, but I think it's highly unlikely they got swapped around in Ipswich yard between 4Q30 and 4Q05.

Video of 4Q05 Ipswich - Peterborough:

And it looks like both 99's will return to base on Wednesday afternoon as 0Q22:

Realtime Trains | 0Q22 1522½ Peterboro Maint Shed Gbrf to Leicester L.I.P. | 18/02/2026

Real-time train running information for 0Q22 1522½ departure from Peterboro Maint Shed Gbrf to Leicester L.I.P. on 18/02/2026. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[hwl]

So what conclusions can be drawn from these trials?

Has the 99 proved that it can outperform, or at least match, the performance of a class 66 off the wires, including the crucial hill out of Felixstowe?

Performance probably need to be defined more carefully, is it:
a) is it a maximum tonnage metric and hence test of 6 axle locomotive adhesion at lower speeds
b) can a Class 99 running on diesel meet Class 66 timings, it will out perform the 66 at low speeds but probably not at medium and higher speeds with lower power at the wheel. E.g. on average on a section of route with low-ish speed lines with a mix of single and double track often some stops, can it match the 66 timings?

 

[Rail Quest]

b) can a Class 99 running on diesel meet Class 66 timings, it will out perform the 66 at low speeds but probably not at medium and higher speeds with lower power at the wheel. E.g. on average on a section of route with low-ish speed lines with a mix of single and double track often some stops, can it match the 66 timings?

Question on this for class 66 drivers or those in the know: do drivers often use notch 8 when driving the locomotives when operating container flows? I seem to remember hearing that notch 7 was the highest most drivers tended to use.

Follow up question, does anyone know the engine power output and at rail power of a shed when running in notch 7?

 

[berwicksfinest]

Question on this for class 66 drivers or those in the know: do drivers often use notch 8 when driving the locomotives when operating container flows? I seem to remember hearing that notch 7 was the highest most drivers tended to use.

Follow up question, does anyone know the engine power output and at rail power of a shed when running in notch 7?

As signing Felixstowe abeit for another FOC.

I personally never use notch 8 on any train !!! But that's another story.

Running in notch 7 usually gives you approx 2390 -2400 hp

 

[Rail Quest]

As signing Felixstowe abeit for another FOC.

I personally never use notch 8 on any train !!! But that's another story.

Running in notch 7 usually gives you approx 2390 -2400 hp

Fantastic, thanks! I'm assuming the power you quoted was referring to at rail? If so, that brings the 66 closer still to whatever the at rail diesel power of the 99s is.

I'm really interested to hear what said at rail value for the 99s turns out to be as it'll be a great demonstration of modern locomotive efficiencies. It's arguably the most important figure in determining the future success of the class.

 

[berwicksfinest]

Fantastic, thanks! I'm assuming the power you quoted was referring to at rail? If so, that brings the 66 closer still to whatever the at rail diesel power of the 99s is.

I'm really interested to hear what said at rail value for the 99s turns out to be as it'll be a great demonstration of modern locomotive efficiencies. It's arguably the most important figure in determining the future success of the class.

All I can say is thats what the EMDEC, (loco's computer) is saying the loco is giving me.

Whilst the loco does the work, it also comes down to how its driven, Some drivers like to lay sand some let the loco do it. I personally leaving the North Terminal drop a notch if she picks her wheels up, lay some sand and re-apply the higher notch. Other let the loco sort itself out.

 

[Class73Electro]

As signing Felixstowe abeit for another FOC.

I personally never use notch 8 on any train !!! But that's another story.

Running in notch 7 usually gives you approx 2390 -2400 hp

Is there a reason you avoid notch 8? Just curious (I only drive virtual trains so full power all the way!)

 

[Richard Scott]

Is there a reason you avoid notch 8? Just curious (I only drive virtual trains so full power all the way!)

They're two stroke and burn fuel like it's going out of fashion at high engine revs! Guessing that's part of the reason. Fairly sure other operators of GM locos would rather drivers didn't use 8th notch.

 

[themiller]

wnxx website now stating the 20th for docking and 23rd Feb for onward movement.

According to marine traffic.com, the Canadian Highway is off the Cornish coast and is due into Bristol at 0100 on 18/02/2026.

 

[hwl]

Is there a reason you avoid notch 8? Just curious (I only drive virtual trains so full power all the way!)

Optimum specific fuel consumption (e.g. g/kWh, kWh measured at alternator output terminals) is in notch 6 and gets progressively worse at either higher or lower notches.
Below about 15mph notch 8 also effectively supplies too much power leading to potential wheel spin and the traction motors getting hot (and degrading performance till they cool down). There is also generally enough slack in most timings to run to Notch 7 - the Class 99 might eat into this margin by using notch 8 but then there is no margin left!
Most intermodals typically run under weight allowing more opportunity for <Notch 8 running.

 

[Class73Electro]

They're two stroke and burn fuel like it's going out of fashion at high engine revs! Guessing that's part of the reason. Fairly sure other operators of GM locos would rather drivers didn't use 8th notch.

Ah fair enough then! Thanks

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Feb 2026 ==

Optimum specific fuel consumption (e.g. g/kWh, kWh measured at alternator output terminals) is in notch 6 and gets progressively worse at either higher or lower notches.
Below about 15mph notch 8 also effectively supplies too much power leading to potential wheel spin and the traction motors getting hot (and degrading performance till they cool down). There is also generally enough slack in most timings to run to Notch 7 - the Class 99 might eat into this margin by using notch 8 but then there is no margin left!
Most intermodals typically run under weight allowing more opportunity for <Notch 8 running.

Thanks for the detailed explanation

 

[Peter Sarf]

This video suggests the order of 4Q05 was 66301+99002+99001 at the front and 66721 at the rear. I say suggests instead of confirms because it's not possible to read the 99's at that speed, but I think it's highly unlikely they got swapped around in Ipswich yard between 4Q30 and 4Q05.

Video of 4Q05 Ipswich - Peterborough:

And it looks like both 99's will return to base on Wednesday afternoon as 0Q22:

Realtime Trains | 0Q22 1522½ Peterboro Maint Shed Gbrf to Leicester L.I.P. | 18/02/2026

Real-time train running information for 0Q22 1522½ departure from Peterboro Maint Shed Gbrf to Leicester L.I.P. on 18/02/2026. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Friend of mine went to photo 99002 leading. But 99002 was just behind a silver 66, then 99001. The other 66 on the back of the train.

 

[robert west]

According to marine traffic.com, the Canadian Highway is off the Cornish coast and is due into Bristol at 0100 on 18/02/2026.

now showing as due to arrive at 2000 tonight

 

[themiller]

now showing as due to arrive at 2000 tonight

It looks like it’ll arrive at a slack high tide so it should be straight through the lock!

 

[1D54]

It looks like it’ll arrive at a slack high tide so it should be straight through the lock!

And next stop Leicester within a couple of days hopefully.

 

[themiller]

And next stop Leicester within a couple of days hopefully.

Now showing doing 28th away from Bristol. Perhaps the berth isn’t free until a ship leaves.

 

[Covshire1]

And next stop Leicester within a couple of days hopefully.

Friday!

0Q33 1411 Portbury Auto Terminal Gbf to Leicester L.I.P.

Realtime Trains | 0Q33 1411 Portbury Auto Terminal Gbf to Leicester L.I.P. | 20/02/2026

Real-time train running information for 0Q33 1411 departure from Portbury Auto Terminal Gbf to Leicester L.I.P. on 20/02/2026. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[zwk500]

And next stop Leicester within a couple of days hopefully.

A boat that big won't get to Leicester...

 

[Brunel7827]

Does anyone know if or when 0Q22 is leaving today? Thanks.

Update: Now showing as cancelled

 

[92002]

A boat that big won't get to Leicester...

Perhaps a short trip to Stansted gauge in Spain and a tow to Leicester via the tunnel would have made more sense. Especially with the number involved for delivery.

 

[802020]

Is there any gen yet on what loco is picking them up (0Q33 Leicester - Portbury) or is it too early? TIA

 

[themiller]

Canadian Highway is currently in the Royal Portbury dock entrance lock.