Class 93 Tri-mode Loco

[Energy]

The Caledonian sleeper still swaps between electric and diesel traction at Edinburgh but as always with these discussions about bimode diesels I wonder at what point does the additional complexity make it worth it over just running a single standard diesel locomotive at least without any price incentives to use more electric traction.

Cal Sleeper has to split anyway.

 

[D6975]

And reverse.

 

[Nottingham59]

According to the Sept 2020 article in RailEngineer the "Class 93 is capable of hauling 1,500 tonnes on non-electrified routes." And apparently it's intended to haul intermodal traffic. See here: https://www.railengineer.co.uk/re-engineering-rail-freight/

 

[ABB125]

According to the Sept 2020 article in RailEngineer the "Class 93 is capable of hauling 1,500 tonnes on non-electrified routes." And apparently it's intended to haul intermodal traffic. See here: https://www.railengineer.co.uk/re-engineering-rail-freight/

Selfishly, I wonder whether they'd be suitable for the (currently DRS-operated) Daventry-Wentloog Tesco service. Electric between Daventry and Bromsgrove, and Severn Tunnel Junction and (near-) Wentloog. I don't think the gradients are too bad between Bromsgrove and STJ?

Of course, this neat plan totally falls apart when you look at the routeing some of the trains take: heading for Wales, the train normally runs via Nuneaton, resulting in an extra non-electrified Nuneaton-Birmingham section; the return often runs via Kidderminster, so has Old Hill Bank to deal with (I assume it's uphill towards Birmingham?).

Ah well, it's nice to dream...

 

[Nottingham59]

has Old Hill Bank to deal with

Send it up the Lickey. 4MW on electric.

(EDIT: and if it's allowed to do 92mph or more at the bottom, it could coast all the way up)

 

[plugwash]

I don't think the 110mph spec is really necessary,100mph is ample.Considering if it is to be used on passenger duties,it will more likely than not be rostered on charter trains and branch lines as cover for broken down or shortages of DMU's/EMU's, much like the DRS 37/47/68's did for greater anglia on norwich-yarmouth

I was under the impression that PRM had ended the days of digging up some old MK2 or MK3 coaches and loco hauling them as a way to cover branch line shortages.

I presume they are eyeing up the possibility of providing haulage for MK4 or MK5A sets in the future.

 

[ABB125]

Send it up the Lickey. 4MW on electric.

(EDIT: and if it's allowed to do 92mph or more at the bottom, it could coast all the way up)

That's the ideal solution, but it reduces diversionary capability. I'm not sure how many days it goes via Kidderminster, and how many via Bromsgrove, there might be some pathing issues with going via Bromsgrove all the time.

 

[Energy]

I don't think the 110mph spec is really necessary,100mph is ample.Considering if it is to be used on passenger duties,it will more likely than not be rostered on charter trains and branch lines as cover for broken down or shortages of DMU's/EMU's, much like the DRS 37/47/68's did for greater anglia on norwich-yarmouth

110mph is for high speed rail freight, it should make it easier to path.

 

[Dunfanaghy Rd]

110mph is for high speed rail freight, it should make it easier to path.

No 110mph freight vehicles. The nearest would be the Eurotwin / FIAs which are plated to 140kph (say 85mph), but only if fitted with balanced wheelsets and capacity limited to 75.5t (compared with 99.5t at 120kph / 75mph).
Pat

 

[43096]

No 110mph freight vehicles. The nearest would be the Eurotwin / FIAs which are plated to 140kph (say 85mph), but only if fitted with balanced wheelsets and capacity limited to 75.5t (compared with 99.5t at 120kph / 75mph).
Pat

Class 325 are freight vehicles - 100mph.

 

[Roast Veg]

No 110mph freight vehicles. The nearest would be the Eurotwin / FIAs which are plated to 140kph (say 85mph), but only if fitted with balanced wheelsets and capacity limited to 75.5t (compared with 99.5t at 120kph / 75mph).
Pat

The market for this is definitely opening, especially if some of the 319 and HST freight conversions take off. 100mph freight is perfectly feasible, and the costly hurdles are all paper-based.

 

[Speed43125]

No 110mph freight vehicles. The nearest would be the Eurotwin / FIAs which are plated to 140kph (say 85mph), but only if fitted with balanced wheelsets and capacity limited to 75.5t (compared with 99.5t at 120kph / 75mph).
Pat

I was under the impression DB (not DBC, but in Germany) ran 160 km/h freight?

 

[Domh245]

The market for this is definitely opening, especially if some of the 319 and HST freight conversions take off. 100mph freight is perfectly feasible, and the costly hurdles are all paper-based.

Are those freight or parcels though

There may be a market for 100mph freight, but it'll be for lightweight time-sensitive items like parcels. 100mph 'freight' which needs the power that a 93 can provide (intermodals & bulk) are a long way off I think, both from technical & commercial points of view

 

[Roast Veg]

I did say opening rather than open!

 

[Greybeard33]

According to the Sept 2020 article in RailEngineer the "Class 93 is capable of hauling 1,500 tonnes on non-electrified routes." And apparently it's intended to haul intermodal traffic. See here: https://www.railengineer.co.uk/re-engineering-rail-freight/

Hmm. Quoting the CEO of ROG. A company that thinks it can make a success of an express parcels business using 12-car formations of 1x769+2x319. And "believes" it can use the 93s to haul high speed intermodals, although it does not yet have any high speed wagons.

Perhaps a pinch of salt is called for?

 

[XAM2175]

I was under the impression DB (not DBC, but in Germany) ran 160 km/h freight?

Not a great deal of it, but they've had a certain number of wagons capable of that speed for nigh on thirty years now. Most still tops out at 120 km/h (~75 mph). I have a very faint recollection that there is or was a goal of allowing 140 km/h (~87 mph) for some types of bulk trains, but that this was hampered to an extent by the brake-force regulations above 120 km/h effectively creating a requirement for disc-braked wagons.

 

[Energy]

Hmm. Quoting the CEO of ROG. A company that thinks it can make a success of an express parcels business using 12-car formations of 1x769+2x319. And "believes" it can use the 93s to haul high speed intermodals, although it does not yet have any high speed wagons.

Perhaps a pinch of salt is called for?

Maybe a pinch of salt but ROG aren't a new company like the one which was trying to use 365s to haul parcels, they do know what they are doing.

 

[furnessvale]

Genuine question: Could you explain what/where the problem would be? With only 1.3MW in diesel/hybrid mode the acceleration of a Class 93 would drop off before that of a 2.5MW Class 66, but the tractive effort at starting would be about the same. Is that route particularly hilly? Or is it the delays that would be caused by slower starts out of freight loops? Maintaining speed on level track wouldn't need anywhere near 1.3MW would it?

It's worth pointing out that to get from Corpach to anywhere other than Fort William involves a runround in Ft William Yard. Adds 20-45 minutes to the schedule depending on train length & yard requirements, especially as the yard is not directly connected to the Glasgow direction so the train would need to set back onto the main line. Also adds the requirement for a 2nd member of staff. With a product like timber where the margins are likely to be very tight in the first place, the additional time and staff costs may well tip the balance from being worth trials to being a non-starter. There may be opportunities for hiring in staff involved with the Jacobite when that's running, but what do you do when it's not?
From aerial images there doesn't look to be anywhere sensible to put an avoiding line in, so regrettably for timber to move back to rail would require either a substantial improvement in the journey time south of Glasgow to compensate for the extra time at Ft William, or a substantial rise in the costs of running the trucks. Would likely require both, to be honest. On the positive note, the points and ground frame at Corpach look to be still present and the sidings are still in the Sectional Appendix, so NR seem to be keeping the link on the books. From the photos I've seen there's a rather substantial amount of greenery in the 4ft of the sidings so it'd take some money to get trains running again. If HGVs get a carbon tax and a decent path could be found south of Glasgow (a Bi-Mode may well be required) it's not impossible that a solution might be found to the operational issues at Fort William.

EDIT: Please ignore above quote. I don't know how it got in here and I don't know how to get shut of it.

Would love to see

That's my angle. Someone said 10 mins worth of battery. If you can get upto line speed of 75mph in 10 mins (not a clue, over to any freight drivers) then as the power to maintain speed drops off the spare power is then used to charge the battery (as per press release says it can) for the next incline when extra power is required. This would also guarantee a full battery when starting away. So would this change it from a last mile capability to effectively a class 37. Clearly some routes would not be suitable but we are not talking about that with most of the liner routes I am aware of. Time will tell I guess.

In answer to both Nottingham59 and 172007. With perfect timetabling and application I can see battery assistance to obtain running speed working well. However, I feel it will need a lot of computer assistance and route knowledge within that computer to know just when and how to use the 10 minutes of available battery power.

e.g. Do I simply draw off all available power from the start only to find that I am 5 minutes from the summit of an incline and slowing rapidly on diesel alone? Or do I nurse that battery power?

Do I save some battery power knowing that the next hill is even worse and there is insufficient time for a complete recharge? (By the way "I" in this case is the onboard computer).

 

[hooverboy]

Send it up the Lickey. 4MW on electric.

(EDIT: and if it's allowed to do 92mph or more at the bottom, it could coast all the way up)

Send the prototype up the lickey on diesel/hybrid with a full compliment of 1000tonnes( or faux passenger "crush" load 15 consist with all electrics on) on a nice,cold, moist autumn day.That will properly stress test everything from pure diesel haulage power,duration of battery assistance and rail adhesion under the most arduous environmental conditions.

If it's lacking,then send it back for a few mods.
I think the present spec would seem a little underpowered,but am optimistic that that can be improved- I see caterpillar have now released a yet newer version of C32 on the marine front.The C32B triple turbo marine is now rated at 2400 Horses up from the 1900 of the original C32 marine.
If a rail variant can be adapted that would theoretically give a 20% or so boost to the 900kW initial specification( 1100kw/ 1500BHP).
That combined with a suitable boost in battery grunt of 20% or so will give a very robust loco indeed.Just get the extra axles on for RA5 rating and your sorted.

 

[hooverboy]

Send the prototype up the lickey on diesel/hybrid with a full compliment of 1000tonnes( or faux passenger "crush" load 15 consist with all electrics on) on a nice,cold, moist autumn day.That will properly stress test everything from pure diesel haulage power,duration of battery assistance and rail adhesion under the most arduous environmental conditions.

If it's lacking,then send it back for a few mods.
I think the present spec would seem a little underpowered,but am optimistic that that can be improved- I see caterpillar have now released a yet newer version of C32 on the marine front.The C32B triple turbo marine is now rated at 2400 Horses up from the 1900 of the original C32 marine.
If a rail variant can be adapted that would theoretically give a 20% or so boost to the 900kW initial specification( 1100kw/ 1500BHP).
That combined with a suitable boost in battery grunt of 20% or so will give a very robust loco indeed.Just get the extra axles on for RA5 rating and your sorted.

Then repeat the test when we get another cold snap like we have recently.Lithium batteries like these really don't like the cold weather, so usability in extreme temperature variances needs to be checked.

 

[themiller]

Then repeat the test when we get another cold snap like we have recently.Lithium batteries like these really don't like the cold weather, so usability in extreme temperature variances needs to be checked.

I don’t think that the batteries will just be hung underneath the loco and left to the mercies of the weather. My Kia e-Niro has a climate control system which controls the temperature of the battery whilst in operation. I would expect the 93 to be designed with a similar system to keep the temperature of the battery constant whilst the loco is in operation powered from any one of the 3 power sources.

 

[hooverboy]

I don’t think that the batteries will just be hung underneath the loco and left to the mercies of the weather. My Kia e-Niro has a climate control system which controls the temperature of the battery whilst in operation. I would expect the 93 to be designed with a similar system to keep the temperature of the battery constant whilst the loco is in operation powered from any one of the 3 power sources.

As I understand it the batteries will have some kind of temperature control solution fitted, but it would be prudent to test them anyway in "cold start" conditions,or at least in the case of diesel engine failure,where latent heat from the engine would not be available.

 

[Nottingham59]

The more I read the Class 93 specification, the more impressed I am. Sure, it may not have the low-speed tractive effort for a stationary start with a 2500T load up the Lickey incline in wet weather, but it seems perfect for the job it's designed for: intermodal freight from East Coast ports over relatively flat country to electrified main lines, and then high enough speed not to consume too many passenger paths. For that sort of journey, it seems to win hands-down against a Class 66.

 

[Energy]

The more I read the Class 93 specification, the more impressed I am. Sure, it may not have the low-speed tractive effort for a stationary start with a 2500T load up the Lickey incline in wet weather, but it seems perfect for the job it's designed for: intermodal freight from East Coast ports over relatively flat country to electrified main lines, and then high enough speed not to consume too many passenger paths. For that sort of journey, it seems to win hands-down against a Class 66.

The faster speed, cheaper operating cost and less damage to the environment should help ROG get some freight contracts.

 

[Nottingham59]

should help ROG get some freight contracts

And once the Class 93 is available, I can envisage Sadiq Khan or his succesor taking steps to ban diesel haulage through London via the North London Line.

 

[ABB125]

And once the Class 93 is available, I can envisage Sadiq Khan or his succesor taking steps to bad diesel haulage through London via the North London Line.

Don't you mean the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan?

I think it could be possible though

 

[Mordac]

I don't think the Mayor of London has the power to do that. They could lobby for it, of course, but that's a very different thing.

 

[Nottingham59]

I don't think the Mayor of London has the power to do that. They could lobby for it, of course, but that's a very different thing.

No, I don't think he has the power, but this is politics. With the growing concerns about urban air pollution, this will look like an easy win for a politician on the make. And didn't Manchester manage to stop Nuclear Waste trains passing through the city? They didn't have the formal power for that, either.

 

[Bob Price]

I could see these on routes with small gaps in electrification. Anything coming off the NLL onto the GWML for example. Lots of potential. However they must have some plans to commit to buying 30 locos.

 

[43096]

I could see these on routes with small gaps in electrification. Anything coming off the NLL onto the GWML for example. Lots of potential. However they must have some plans to commit to buying 30 locos.

They aren't committed to buying 30 locos. They have ordered 10 with 20 more on option, unless I have missed an announcement confirming the 20 options as being firm?