Class 93 Tri-mode Loco

[rick pike]

93s on the sleepers? April fools...

 

[Peter Sarf]

The April edition of Modern Railways reports that the 93s will be tested with GWR on the sleeper services, running double-headed to “ensure reliaibility”. London-bound sleepers are intended to pause at Reading whilst the front loco runs round to the back before departing to Paddington. This then allows the train to depart Paddington promptly and go back to Reading for cleaning and servicing.

Might this be on the blood and custard page - thats usually where the ahem humorous articles go iirc.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

93s on the sleepers? April fools...

Yes, it would be more believable if it was 99s with a view towards testing for the proposed 99/4 fleet... but 93s just don't have enough diesel capacity for the long run off the wires to Penzance do they?

Yes, the April issue. It landed this week! (Electronically)

I think you've missed the significance of it being the April issue...?

 

[Class15]

MR would be losing my custom if it was a joke.

 

[Rail Quest]

I mean, it seems perfectly reasonable that it would work, performance wise. No idea how such an arrangement would be cost effective though.

 

[Peter Sarf]

MR would be losing my custom if it was a joke.

I think they do one every year so I would not be surprised.

 

[MikePJ]

Yes, it would be more believable if it was 99s with a view towards testing for the proposed 99/4 fleet... but 93s just don't have enough diesel capacity for the long run off the wires to Penzance do they?



I think you've missed the significance of it being the April issue...?

Here's a screengrab. The upper story about the route clearance is definitely true; the lower story about the sleeper trial is a bit thin on detail but doesn't contain any of the traditional nudges that an April Fool story would typically contain, like quotes from people with punning or innuendo-ish names.

 

[cce]

A trial doesn't need to be more than sending them over the route with load 8, to pretty slack timings...

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Hmm... does look feasible based on that. Two on diesel would be a bit less powerful than a 57 but yes, it's a fairly slack timing I suppose...

 

[Belfastmarty]

This really doesn't sound even vaguely sensible. You are doubling your fuel cost over most of the route for the minor saving of some shunting at either end. I'm struggling to see the value here.

 

[MarkyT]

Hmm... does look feasible based on that. Two on diesel would be a bit less powerful than a 57 but yes, it's a fairly slack timing I suppose...

Don't forget the locos have a boost mode battery capability that, for up to ~10 minutes can raise output on diesel from 900 to 1300kW. Combined they can produce 500kW more than a single 57/6 at maximum output, and the pair will have more powered axles to lay it down and likely more sophisticated traction control.

What was clear from the Green Signals featured test run on Shap under diesel was how quickly the battery charge state can recover from the engine and regen to be ready again for another hill-climbing boost. That might suit the fairly short Devon banks very well: Climb out of Newton Abbot, over Dainton, and be fully recharged by Totnes for the next onslaught, for example.

A similar, slightly larger battery on the same manufacturer's class 99 could help to boost diesel performance in the same way, and allow the locos to shuffle around at low speed in terminals and depots without making smoke.

 

[hwl]

This really doesn't sound even vaguely sensible. You are doubling your fuel cost over most of the route for the minor saving of some shunting at either end. I'm struggling to see the value here.

How have you come to the conclusion that fuel cost will be doubled over most of the route?
The 93s have very fuel efficient engines (better specific fuel consumption at all notch levels) and are much better (i.e. more efficient) at delivering energy to the wheels or to ETS (or both) compared to the 57. The pair of 93s (on diesel ignoring any battery) will have similar maximum usable power in practice compared to a 57 (due to better electrical equipment efficiency). The question is actually how much less fuel the pair of Class 93s will use compared to the Class 57.

This is very similar to the Caledonian sleeper/GBRf thinking with 2x Class 73/9 on the Inverness Highlander portion and the GWR mk3. ETS loads are lower than the mk5.

Still a single Class 99 with ETS capability could be simpler apart from the Paddington - Reading shuttle element. (This trial would also inform GWR how a 99 would perform well before one with ETS is built).

Operationally you would need 4x 93s or 3x 99/57s before worrying about spare locos.

 

[MarkyT]

If the two loco solution, with its inherent greater resilience, was preferred, perhaps investment in a radio-linked remote-control system between the locos might be justified to allow top and tail operation throughout and avoid the morning shuffle at Reading. The locos, when stabled at Reading and Long Rock might become the yard shunters overnight, being able to move stock around quietly on battery power, and thus displacing the Long Rock 08. A reinstated Plymouth portion might be shunted easily by one of the locos to/from whichever end of the formation is desirable, without the need for a station pilot.

 

[hwl]

If the two loco solution, with its inherent greater resilience, was preferred, perhaps investment in a radio-linked remote-control system between the locos might be justified to allow top and tail operation throughout and avoid the morning shuffle at Reading. The locos, when stabled at Reading and Long Rock might become the yard shunters overnight, being able to move stock around quietly on battery power, and thus displacing the Long Rock 08. A reinstated Plymouth portion might be shunted easily by one of the locos to/from whichever end of the formation is desirable, without the need for a station pilot.

Stadler locos are quite easy to modify for AAR multi-working (e.g. Chiltern 68+Mk3+DVT) so traditional wired would be fairly cheap and easy but you wouldn't do this for a trial.

 

[RichardAsh1981]

Stadler locos are quite easy to modify for AAR multi-working (e.g. Chiltern 68+Mk3+DVT) so traditional wired would be fairly cheap and easy but you wouldn't do this for a trial.

Agreed on both points. I'm fairly sure there already AAR sockets on the end of a 93 so no need to modify the locos, but the stock would need to be wired through.

 

[43096]

Stadler locos are quite easy to modify for AAR multi-working (e.g. Chiltern 68+Mk3+DVT) so traditional wired would be fairly cheap and easy but you wouldn't do this for a trial.

Or just run UIC-18 jumpers through the stock.

 

[Belfastmarty]

How have you come to the conclusion that fuel cost will be doubled over most of the route?
The 93s have very fuel efficient engines (better specific fuel consumption at all notch levels) and are much better (i.e. more efficient) at delivering energy to the wheels or to ETS (or both) compared to the 57.

I'm certainly hard pushed to think of any instance where legacy locos have been replaced on a 2 for 1 basis. But I agree a single 93 will be much more efficient than a 57. So much so that 2 will use less fuel than a single 57 ? Not sure I buy that. OK, for discussions sake, let's say that is the case, what about leasing costs ? Or staffing costs if they can't be used in multiple ? Or the costs of making them work in multiple with the sleeper stock ? The only way ROG will be able to find a home for the 93s is if they can demonstrate an efficiency gain over what is incumbent. In this case I'm just not seeing how that's happening.

 

[BRX]

I'm certainly hard pushed to think of any instance where legacy locos have been replaced on a 2 for 1 basis.

It's effectively what has happened with every loco-hauled train that has been replaced by multiple units. One large engine replaced with several smaller ones. For fuel consumption the main thing that matters is the efficiency of the engines, not how many there are. Of course, leasing costs is another matter.

 

[cce]

Could a 93 work with a 68? I gather some are off lease now and starting the 68 up off the wires only could provide some interesting options

 

[craigybagel]

Don't forget the locos have a boost mode battery capability that, for up to ~10 minutes can raise output on diesel from 900 to 1300kW. Combined they can produce 500kW more than a single 57/6 at maximum output, and the pair will have more powered axles to lay it down and likely more sophisticated traction control.

What was clear from the Green Signals featured test run on Shap under diesel was how quickly the battery charge state can recover from the engine and regen to be ready again for another hill-climbing boost. That might suit the fairly short Devon banks very well: Climb out of Newton Abbot, over Dainton, and be fully recharged by Totnes for the next onslaught, for example.

A similar, slightly larger battery on the same manufacturer's class 99 could help to boost diesel performance in the same way, and allow the locos to shuffle around at low speed in terminals and depots without making smoke.

Was it not also suggested however the battery recharge wasn't all that quick when the ETH was switched on?

 

[MarkyT]

It's effectively what has happened with every loco-hauled train that has been replaced by multiple units. One large engine replaced with several smaller ones. For fuel consumption the main thing that matters is the efficiency of the engines, not how many there are. Of course, leasing costs is another matter.

Including the HSTs, of course, BR's response to civil engineers' increasing concerns over ever-larger and heavier single-unit diesels like Kestral at the highest speeds. Top and tailing with smaller locomotives is an HST-like solution, and the units, being easily removed from the rakes, are more flexible than single-cabbed power cars.

The class 27s top and tailing Glasgow - Edinburgh trains in the 1970s are another example. It was the high demand for type 4s elsewhere at the time that led to this solution, which lasted for around a decade until class 47s became available, paired with push-pull sets.

 

[Richard Scott]

I'm certainly hard pushed to think of any instance where legacy locos have been replaced on a 2 for 1 basis. But I agree a single 93 will be much more efficient than a 57. So much so that 2 will use less fuel than a single 57 ? Not sure I buy that. OK, for discussions sake, let's say that is the case, what about leasing costs ? Or staffing costs if they can't be used in multiple ? Or the costs of making them work in multiple with the sleeper stock ? The only way ROG will be able to find a home for the 93s is if they can demonstrate an efficiency gain over what is incumbent. In this case I'm just not seeing how that's happening.

Sure some sleepers in early 1990s had pair of 37s replacing a 47?
If allowing abroad DB did it with pairs of 218s replacing a single 234 on a few IC services.

 

[sprinterguy]

Sure some sleepers in early 1990s had pair of 37s replacing a 47?

Yeah, the Aberdeen and Inverness portions forward from Edinburgh, between 1992 and 1995.

 

[43096]

Sure some sleepers in early 1990s had pair of 37s replacing a 47?
If allowing abroad DB did it with pairs of 218s replacing a single 234 on a few IC services.

There’s a bit of a difference using pairs of 25 year-old locos against using a pair of brand new locos that are inevitably expensive to lease.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I'm certainly hard pushed to think of any instance where legacy locos have been replaced on a 2 for 1 basis. But I agree a single 93 will be much more efficient than a 57. So much so that 2 will use less fuel than a single 57 ? Not sure I buy that. OK, for discussions sake, let's say that is the case, what about leasing costs ? Or staffing costs if they can't be used in multiple ? Or the costs of making them work in multiple with the sleeper stock ? The only way ROG will be able to find a home for the 93s is if they can demonstrate an efficiency gain over what is incumbent. In this case I'm just not seeing how that's happening.

The 93s will run in multiple so no extra staffing required.

I expect the one off costs of adding through cables to the sleeper stock would be easily recouped by lower staffing costs.

Top and tailing a rake would allow for less staff due to not needing a driver to bring the release loco onto the sleeper after it has arrived in Paddington in the morning, and also to bring the ECS in next evening. Same at Penzance.

Two engines are not necessarily less efficient than one. Depends on overall power demanded and efficiency gains over the years of development.

 

[Richard Scott]

There’s a bit of a difference using pairs of 25 year-old locos against using a pair of brand new locos that are inevitably expensive to lease.

Whilst I'd agree it's not the point being made.
Currently seems these locos have very little work anyway so could be negotiations over price?

 

[47286Dan]

Bank Holiday Monday afternoon update

93001 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY F N
93002 GROG GRESTYBGE GRESTYBGE F N
93003 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY F N
93004 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY F N
93005 GROG DERBY RTC DERBY RTC F N
93006 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY F N
93007 GROG CREWE SYD CREWE SYD D N
93008 GROG CREWE SYD CREWE SYD F N
93009 GROG CREWE SYD CREWE SYD F N
93010 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY F N

Dan

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Apr 2026 ==

Tuesday morning update

93001 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY F N
93002 GROG GRESTYBGE GRESTYBGE F N
93003 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY F N
93004 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY F N
93005 GROG DERBY RTC 570Q422E07 F CREWE SYD N
93006 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY F N
93007 GROG CREWE SYD CREWE SYD D N
93008 GROG CREWE SYD CREWE SYD F N
93009 GROG CREWE SYD CREWE SYD F N
93010 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY F N

Dan

 

[1D54]

Pretty sure one of these was on Leicester yard on Friday and Saturday, maybe 005 or i was mistaken.

 

[BRcrosslane]

93005 ay Crewe Gresty Bridge Depot (Sat 11th), just visable from access road.

 

[47286Dan]

Saturday morning update

93001 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY F N
93002 GROG EGHT RSMD CREWE SYD N
93003 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY F N
93004 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY F N
93005 GROG EGHT RSMD GRESTYBGE N
93006 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY F N
93007 GROG CREWE SYD CREWE SYD D N
93008 GROG CREWE SYD CREWE SYD F N
93009 GROG EGHT RSMD GRESTYBGE N
93010 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY F N

Dan