Class 93 Tri-mode Loco

[Meerkat]

I do remember that the container terminal at Wilton was built there because ICI wanted the ability to load their containers beyond the Road limit at the time. The destination would also need to be somewhere that didn’t need to involve road haulage or a break-bulk centre like Daventry.

Are the roads between the rail terminals and warehouses at Daventry (and similar) public roads? If not they could go to heavier loads?

 

[Nottingham59]

Higher gearing results in slower rate of acceleration.

The presenter on the video calls it higher gearing, when he actually means higher traction effort (force)

 

[Sonik]

The gross weight of a current HGV is 44 tonnes, giving a payload of 29-30 tonnes. Having successfully lobbied for longer HGVs, the road haulage industry is now seeking even longer 62 tonnes HGVs, capable of carrying 1 x 40ft plus 1x 20ft container, and is quietly receiving support from the DfT.

Longer HGVs don't change the road weight limit. It is worth noting that the road haulage industry is lobbying for heavier vehicles is to allow for electrification but the additional weight will be eaten by batteries. Without additional weight limits, BEV trucks will have even less payload than they have now.

Given the correct density of cargo, a 60ft rail container flat could theoretically carry 3 x 20ft containers, each weighing 30 tonnes. This would exceed the ability of the wagon to carry them, which is why 60ft rail wagons are often seen with a 20ft box at each end. Thus the first of those key takeaways is not correct in every case.

Am I missing something? A wagon with 2x 30 Ton load the whole wagon ends up weighing about 80 tons. I guess the point is that containers are irregular units so it's not really possible to just load wagons right up to the axle limit as you would with e.g. aggregates or coal.

 

[Roast Veg]

Longer HGVs don't change the road weight limit. It is worth noting that the road haulage industry is lobbying for heavier vehicles is to allow for electrification but the additional weight will be eaten by batteries. Without additional weight limits, BEV trucks will have even less payload than they have now.

I think there are two forces at play here - larger payloads and heavier weight truck cabs. One does not preclude the other, but both are going to require more road maintenance.

 

[furnessvale]

Longer HGVs don't change the road weight limit. It is worth noting that the road haulage industry is lobbying for heavier vehicles is to allow for electrification but the additional weight will be eaten by batteries. Without additional weight limits, BEV trucks will have even less payload than they have now.

There are two separate lobbying efforts at present. One to allow heavier HGVs to compensate for batteries, but number two is a long standing lobby to allow much longer and heavier LHVs, which predates battery technology.

Having been successful with longer HGVs, the lobby is now emboldened to push harder for the 62 tonnes, 25.25m long LHV. Once that has been accepted, possibly within the next 2-3 years, the next target is 90tonnes double bottom outfits carrying 2 x 40-45ft containers.

 

[Richard Scott]

The presenter on the video calls it higher gearing, when he actually means higher traction effort (force)

Higher traction effort doesn't always result in higher acceleration, just the ability to haul heavier loads with fewer issues like wheelslip. Acceleration will be limited by available power, as soon as loco can get maximum power to rail it will accelerate at its greatest rate. A 93 on diesel plus battery will never accelerate at the same rate as a 68 (given that both have near identical top speeds the gearing can't be vastly different) as it doesn't have the available power to do so.

 

[Sonik]

Higher traction effort doesn't always result in higher acceleration, just the ability to haul heavier loads with fewer issues like wheelslip. Acceleration will be limited by available power, as soon as loco can get maximum power to rail it will accelerate at its greatest rate. A 93 on diesel plus battery will never accelerate at the same rate as a 68 (given that both have near identical top speeds the gearing can't be vastly different) as it doesn't have the available power to do so.

The 93 has a slightly higher top speed than a 68, I suspect that's the reason for the 93 having slightly lower tractive effort at higher speeds

The question is if the power is adequate for the sections being run, I'd suggest that the logic is that slightly longer timings on diesel/battery sections will be compensated by much faster timings on the electrified sections, so likely it will work best on certain very busy routes e.g. Felixtowe/North London/WCML. Compared to a 66 all the way, or a loco swap on route, the 93 obviously offers advantages, particularly for the all important staff hours. TBH I think ROG are doing a bit of an experiment, and it's perfectly possible that they may tweak the design based on operational feedback, even if only for subsequent batches.

Personally I think it's a very good thing that a private venture is willing to take on such commercial risk in an attempt to find a new optimization. Bottom line these locos won't end up parked if they do turn out to offer a significant cost advantage, even if it only works only on certain optimum routes, because unlike franchise operators, FOCs are commercial business on very tight margins, that must compete or die.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Sep 2023 ==

There are two separate lobbying efforts at present. One to allow heavier HGVs to compensate for batteries, but number two is a long standing lobby to allow much longer and heavier LHVs, which predates battery technology.

Having been successful with longer HGVs, the lobby is now emboldened to push harder for the 62 tonnes, 25.25m long LHV. Once that has been accepted, possibly within the next 2-3 years, the next target is 90tonnes double bottom outfits carrying 2 x 40-45ft containers.

This does raise the questions of increased road wear and how to decarbonise much heavier vehicles. The later gives a reason to accept the former but the other way round is going to be a very difficult sell politically

i.e. why allow bigger lorries that destroy roads and are essentially locking the industry into diesel haulage. Hydrogen doesn't really fix this either because it's much more expensive.

 

[BRX]

A move to road pricing instead of tax on fuel would provide a way to make heavy vehicles pay in proportion to the wear they exert on the roads (which as I understand it doesn't just increase in a linear relation to weight). Of course no doubt the same lobbying would be looking for discounts on these real costs.

 

[D1511]

If road pricing were predicated on the amount of damage to the carriageway surfacing, then 42 tonne HGVs would have to pay about 5000 times the amount of an average family car. Buses are similarly damaging in comparison.
If just cars drove around on roads , they basically wouldn't deteriorate very much at all, until the binding material starts to decompose after about 80-100 years, depending on the weather.
Road pricing is not as simplistic of course, and will relate to congestion etc., but including emissions as a parameter will incentivise hauliers to move towards greener vehicles, as they'll be squeezed for both maintenance and emissions levies. Hydrogen retrofits (not fuel cells, but using a small amount of diesel as an ignition for a hydrogen based fuel which generates 98% less emissions at the tailpipe) are available now and are not prohibitively expensive. The issue is refuelling......although Cranfield have developed a mobile hydrogen fuel lorry that could pop over to Eddie Stobart's yard and fill up 30 or so lorries at a time.
If they don't move to greener fleets then they'll be financially penalised by road pricing and rail will become competitive again......which brings us to the tri-mode class 93, which has an end to end capability that will help this further by reducing the TOC costs. And if lorries paid their fair share of highway maintenance costs, then that long line of stored locos at CE might be needed again as well!

 

[Sonik]

If they don't move to greener fleets then they'll be financially penalised by road pricing and rail will become competitive again......which brings us to the tri-mode class 93, which has an end to end capability that will help this further by reducing the TOC costs. And if lorries paid their fair share of highway maintenance costs, then that long line of stored locos at CE might be needed again as well!

Totally agree. Rail freight is already very competitive on a ton mile basis but the market is artificially distorted in favor of road haulage, something that cannot continue while tackling emissions. It's also worth noting that maintaining roads is itself far more carbon intensive than maintaining railway track.

The issues for rail at the moment (caused mostly by temporary market distortions thanks to Mr Putin) are that diesel is too cheap, UK electricity is ridiculously expensive and road hauliers clearly don't pay their full external costs. Re-balancing of any of these factors will drive more freight to rail.

The other factor to consider is that government have a clear and necessary commitment to reduce electricity prices by decoupling as far as possible from the gas price (this being driven not only by cost of living concerns, but also by the push for BEV cars and heat pumps) so it's inevitable that at some point in the next couple of years that electric traction will become far more cost effective, pushing FOCs to reduce/eliminate diesel under wires running.

So if ROG's claim that the Class 93 can reduce operational costs by 2/3 is true, it should substantially move the goalposts, because fuel and staffing alone account for roughly 50% of FOC costs.

 

[Class15]

Any updates regarding 93001?

 

[92002]

Any updates regarding 93001?

Even 93003 and 93004 that are due for delivery.

 

[Carlisle]

A move to road pricing instead of tax on fuel would provide a way to make heavy vehicles pay in proportion to the wear they exert on the roads (which as I understand it doesn't just increase in a linear relation to weight). Of course no doubt the same lobbying would be looking for discounts on these real costs.

If we’re going for fully commercial Road Pricing hauliers really deserve some form of compensation for non fault delays, roadworks, diversions & closures just as Network Rail reimburses rail operators in similar circumstances with some companies over the years reportedly doing fairly well from it.

 

[The_Train]

All of the original 10 are now reported to be built. 002 has returned to Valencia from Romania so the 9 not in the UK are all in Valencia ready for shipment to the UK (apparently)

 

[ChristopherJ]

Any updates on these Class 93 locos?

Despite ROG shouting from the rooftops about their new toys - images on the front of every rail magazine and a constant stream of articles about how amazing their new asset will be - it seems now the first loco is physically here in Blighty, it's all gone quiet...

Not that I should be surprised by ROG, they used the same tactic with Orion. Lots of corporate shouting which ultimately came to nothing when the product was introduced and quietly disappeared after a few trial runs...

 

[Carlisle]

Not that I should be surprised by ROG, they used the same tactic with Orion. Lots of corporate shouting which ultimately came to nothing when the product was introduced and quietly disappeared after a few trial runs...

Those were exactly my thoughts too, hope it’s more successful than Orion.

 

[furnessvale]

If we’re going for fully commercial Road Pricing hauliers really deserve some form of compensation for non fault delays, roadworks, diversions & closures just as Network Rail reimburses rail operators in similar circumstances with some companies over the years reportedly doing fairly well from it.

As long as road hauliers accept similar conditions to FOCs, eg a path for your HGV needs to be booked and if there is no path, you don't move!

 

[JKF]

All of the original 10 are now reported to be built. 002 has returned to Valencia from Romania so the 9 not in the UK are all in Valencia ready for shipment to the UK (apparently)

Are they likely to be coming in via Portbury? Would be nice if they moved onwards via rail (though I guess this would need clearance work?)

 

[themiller]

Presumably they’ll be cleared for anywhere the 88s can go as long as they have the same attributes.

 

[800001]

All gone very quite on the 93 front, no reports of 93001 since arriving at Worksop, not aware of any mainline testing yet?

 

[PJM]

ERS Mk3 (Load 8 test rake moving to Crewe on 09/12;
93001 then due to move to Crewe on 11/12. Commissioning runs then to take place Crewe-Carnforth/Carlisle.

From a Facebook post by James Hartley

 

[800001]

ERS Mk3 (Load 8 test rake moving to Crewe on 09/12;
93001 then due to move to Crewe on 11/12. Commissioning runs then to take place Crewe-Carnforth/Carlisle.

From a Facebook post by James Hartley

Thank you, good to know some progress

 

[gingertom]

Thank you, good to know some progress

the climb up Shap on diesel+battery could be..... interesting.

 

[AndrewE]

the climb up Shap on diesel+battery could be..... interesting.

Yes, but given that there are wires to allow 5400 hp output let's hope that testing the emergency reserve is only done when nothing else is moving anyway.
If the power fails one thing is certain: they will be doing a lot better than a straight electric loco... and what will be really interesting to see is whether their performance actually beats a Cl 66!

 

[Richard Scott]

Yes, but given that there are wires to allow 5400 hp output let's hope that testing the emergency reserve is only done when nothing else is moving anyway.
If the power fails one thing is certain: they will be doing a lot better than a straight electric loco... and what will be really interesting to see is whether their performance actually beats a Cl 66!

On electric they'll have no problem beating a 66 but they wouldn't come close on diesel especially on a long climb where the battery will not have sufficient reserves. The AC/AC drive system will give some efficiency advantages over the 66's AC/DC system but nowhere near enough to cover the the around 2000hp deficiency in the diesel engine.

 

[Nottingham59]

On electric they'll have no problem beating a 66 but they wouldn't come close on diesel especially on a long climb where the battery will not have sufficient reserves. The AC/AC drive system will give some efficiency advantages over the 66's AC/DC system but nowhere near enough to cover the the around 2000hp deficiency in the diesel engine.

But you wouldn't use 93s on busy routes with long steep climbs off the wires. Shap and Beattock are wired, where the 93s will be twice as fast as a class 66.

And hills like Felixstowe to Ipswich are not so busy that it matters how long a 93 on diesel would take to get up them.

If I were a potential customer of a 93, I'd want proof that a lightweight 4-axle locomotive was able to deliver the claimed Tractive Effort on wet rails in winter. Does the ERS test rake include a dynamometer car?

 

[Richard Scott]

But you wouldn't use 93s on busy routes with long steep climbs off the wires. Shap and Beattock are wired, where the 93s will be twice as fast as a class 66.

And hills like Felixstowe to Ipswich are not so busy that it matters how long a 93 on diesel would take to get up them.

If I were a potential customer of a 93, I'd want proof that a lightweight 4-axle locomotive was able to deliver the claimed Tractive Effort on wet rails in winter. Does the ERS test rake include a dynamometer car?

But the post previous to that one is comparing a climb up Shap on diesel to a 66. Whilst highly unlikely this will happen that's what was being commented on hence what I wrote.

 

[43096]

And hills like Felixstowe to Ipswich are not so busy that it matters how long a 93 on diesel would take to get up them.

Given that the route is single track in places, that there’s an hourly passenger service and heavy traffic from the port terminals, it absolutely does matter.

It’s hard to escape the conclusion that the 93 is a solution looking for a problem.

 

[Nottingham59]

But the post previous to that one is comparing a climb up Shap on diesel to a 66. Whilst highly unlikely this will happen that's what was being commented on hence what I wrote.

Understood. I guess I was replying to the previous post, too!

 

[gingertom]

If I were a potential customer of a 93, I'd want proof that a lightweight 4-axle locomotive was able to deliver the claimed Tractive Effort on wet rails in winter. Does the ERS test rake include a dynamometer car?

Exactly the point of these test runs. I don't know about a dyno car but even without it sufficient data will be gathered to verify it actually does what it is claimed to do, in all modes.

As for a solution looking for a problem, somebody has put up a considerable amount of money for their manufacture. There must have been a satisfactory business case to justify such investment. I'm looking forward to seeing them in revenue-earning service.