Class 93 Tri-mode Loco

[ac6000cw]

Hmmm i wonder if ROG will go back to Stadler and ask for the remap package - after all the C32 can have up to 1900 bhp, so the 1200 it has now is more conservative....

From what I've seen on the Cat website, the 1900 bhp is a relatively short term rating for some marine use cases (at 2300 rpm!). Also Cat don't appear to list a version above 1200 hp that meets EU emissions rules for rail use.

As Richard Scott said above, more power means more cooling, maybe a larger fuel tank, higher exhaust after-treatment capacity, a higher capacity alternator etc. (and the 93 is already at 21.5t axle load, plus the space limitations inside the loco).

Just how tight is the timetabling out of Felixstowe (where 93s will be much slower up the hill than a 66).

I suspect the critical section on the branch is the pretty flat, roughly 7 miles between Derby Road and Trimley (6 miles of single and 1 mile of double track at the Trimley end). I think acceleration away from Trimley and Derby Road is important to keep things fluid (trains don't generally hang about on that section - back when the passenger trains were 153s they were always hammered along there). From Ipswich (East Suffolk Junction) it's a 2.5 mile double-track climb to up to Westerfield (and that section has the East Suffolk line passenger trains too). On the other side of Westerfield it's a 2.5 mile single-track climb up from Derby Road.

Not ideal territory for a low-powered loco (away from the wires).

 

[Peter Sarf]

From what I've seen on the Cat website, the 1900 bhp is a relatively short term rating for some marine use cases (at 2300 rpm!). Also Cat don't appear to list a version above 1200 hp that meets EU emissions rules for rail use.

As Richard Scott said above, more power means more cooling, maybe a larger fuel tank, higher exhaust after-treatment capacity, a higher capacity alternator etc. (and the 93 is already at 21.5t axle load, plus the space limitations inside the loco).


I suspect the critical section on the branch is the pretty flat, roughly 7 miles between Derby Road and Trimley (6 miles of single and 1 mile of double track at the Trimley end). I think acceleration away from Trimley and Derby Road is important to keep things fluid (trains don't generally hang about on that section - back when the passenger trains were 153s they were always hammered along there). From Ipswich (East Suffolk Junction) it's a 2.5 mile double-track climb to up to Westerfield (and that section has the East Suffolk line passenger trains too). On the other side of Westerfield it's a 2.5 mile single-track climb up from Derby Road.

Not ideal territory for a low-powered loco (away from the wires).

Dawns on me that it might be worth wiring the steeper parts of the Felixstowe branch (semi tongue in cheek)
But I think we can rule out Felixstowe as regards the first ten 93s.

As regards the 93 and its power we are in danger of making it more powerful, needing more axles for the weight/size, tempted to keep a battery or call it a 99.

 

[ic31420]

From what I've seen on the Cat website, the 1900 bhp is a relatively short term rating for some marine use cases (at 2300 rpm!). Also Cat don't appear to list a version above 1200 hp that meets EU emissions rules for rail use.

As Richard Scott said above, more power means more cooling, maybe a larger fuel tank, higher exhaust after-treatment capacity, a higher capacity alternator etc. (and the 93 is already at 21.5t axle load, plus the space limitations inside the loco).


I suspect the critical section on the branch is the pretty flat, roughly 7 miles between Derby Road and Trimley (6 miles of single and 1 mile of double track at the Trimley end). I think acceleration away from Trimley and Derby Road is important to keep things fluid (trains don't generally hang about on that section - back when the passenger trains were 153s they were always hammered along there). From Ipswich (East Suffolk Junction) it's a 2.5 mile double-track climb to up to Westerfield (and that section has the East Suffolk line passenger trains too). On the other side of Westerfield it's a 2.5 mile single-track climb up from Derby Road.

Not ideal territory for a low-powered loco (away from the wires).

The time advantages of the 93s Vs 90s doesn't come from the slog up Shap, or a few mins made or lost on the branch but from not having to mess about in terminals with shunters or diesels.

You need to do a hell of a lot of faster running to make up 15mins on the road, but not faffing with a shunter easily saves that.


What's the price difference of a 99 vs a 93... What's the running costs difference ?

I think that's the real test for FOCs looking for new traction which might include an element of AC ability

 

[Yorkshire09876]

2

The time advantages of the 93s Vs 90s doesn't come from the slog up Shap, or a few mins made or lost on the branch but from not having to mess about in terminals with shunters or diesels.

You need to do a hell of a lot of faster running to make up 15mins on the road, but not faffing with a shunter easily saves that.


What's the price difference of a 99 vs a 93... What's the running costs difference ?

I think that's the real test for FOCs looking for new traction which might include an element of AC ability

But does 15 minutes actually matter greatly with a freight train?

 

[Rail Quest]

What's the price difference of a 99 vs a 93

For a class 93, Rail Magazine reported over £40 million for the total deal of 10 locos, so presumably ~£4 million per. Source: https://www.railmagazine.com/news/n...s-fuels-its-ambitions-with-tri-mode-class-93s

Ten tri-mode locomotives are being ordered by Rail Operations (UK) Limited, in a deal worth more than £40 million.

For a class 99, Rail Magazine reported £5 million per loco. Source: https://www.railmagazine.com/news/g...rt-appearing-on-other-regions-from-next-month

Each ‘99’ built at Stadler’s Valencia factory costs approximately £5 million. The fleet of 30 is being leased through Beacon Rail.

 

[800001]

Just seen the following on Linkedln

ABSOLUTELY AMAZING! Over a 3-day period earlier this week, Freightliner and Rail Operations Group undertook trials of the new Stadler class 93 tri-mode locomotive. The trials involved intermodal… | Karl Watts FCIRO

ABSOLUTELY AMAZING! Over a 3-day period earlier this week, Freightliner and Rail Operations Group undertook trials of the new Stadler class 93 tri-mode locomotive. The trials involved intermodal freight train operations between Daventry, Mossend and Grangemouth over the West Coast Main Line and...

www.linkedin.com

Over a 3-day period earlier this week, Freightliner and Rail Operations Group undertook trials of the new Stadler class 93 tri-mode locomotive. The trials involved intermodal freight train operations between Daventry, Mossend and Grangemouth over the West Coast Main Line and hauled by 93006. The northbound service, 4S48, had a total weight of 1,633 tons. 93006 covered the section between Crewe and Mossend’s PD Stirling’s terminal in just 4 hours 32 minutes, 1 hour 17 minutes quicker than the booked schedule. The locomotive also had to negotiate the steep gradients over Shap and Beattock on a very slippery and wet rail. Astonishingly, the locomotive actually gained time whilst traversing these gradients. This performance is not only testament to the power of electric traction but also the sophistication of modern traction control systems and traction sand systems. At 1,754 tons, the return service from Grangemouth was even heavier. In spite of this, the locomotive traversed Beattock summit at 52mph. Again, the locomotive shaved 1 hour and 8 minutes off the booked schedule. The trial also involved operation into a non-electrified freight terminal. No change of locomotive required for this, the locomotive simply switches into diesel, battery or hybrid power mode. The class 93 is re-writing the rules of UK freight operations. And that’s not all. More trials in 2026 but this time operating at 90mph

 

[Rail Quest]

Just seen the following on Linkedln

That final sentence is a real cliff-hanger!

And that’s not all. More trials in 2026 but this time operating at 90mph. Watch this space!

 

[Suraggu]

That final sentence is a real cliff-hanger!

I wouldn’t read to much into it.

 

[furnessvale]

2


But does 15 minutes actually matter greatly with a freight train?

15 minutes out on the road can make or break a potential path.

Not so sure about its effect regarding shunting etc, but I suppose presenting for dispatch 15 mins earlier could find you a path that isn't available a bit later.

Over and above that, freght can be just as time sensitive as passengers if you have a terminal waiting with lifting equipment and HGVs lined up but no train appears.

 

[zwk500]

2


But does 15 minutes actually matter greatly with a freight train?

Sometimes 30 seconds can make or break a freight path.
Sometimes youre waiting for 45 minutes whether you like it or not.

 

[hwl]

That final sentence is a real cliff-hanger!

I wouldn’t read to much into it.

The IKA "Megafret" container wagons can operate at up to 140kmh (87mph) away from NR track on the continent so it would merely be operating them at 87mph on a suitable section of NR route.

The planning and assessment behind this has been going on for few years. The other haulage option for the trial is 2x Class 90s.

 

[zwk500]

The IKA "Megafret" container wagons can operate at up to 140kmh (87mph) away from NR track on the continent so it would merely be operating them at 87mph on a suitable section of NR route.

Presumably 85mph if were splitting hairs, as NR only publish limits in increments of 5mph IIRC?

Will be interesting to see where the extra 15mph actually ends up unlocking faster paths. I imagine it will be quite helpful if approved.

 

[Harlequinuk]

Mtu v12 are also listed

The IKA "Megafret" container wagons can operate at up to 140kmh (87mph) away from NR track on the continent so it would merely be operating them at 87mph on a suitable section of NR route.

The planning and assessment behind this has been going on for few years. The other haulage option for the trial is 2x Class 90s.

Maybe run them on a 92 then

 

[Unobrow]

The time advantages of the 93s Vs 90s doesn't come from the slog up Shap, or a few mins made or lost on the branch but from not having to mess about in terminals with shunters or diesels.

You need to do a hell of a lot of faster running to make up 15mins on the road, but not faffing with a shunter easily saves that.


What's the price difference of a 99 vs a 93... What's the running costs difference ?

I think that's the real test for FOCs looking for new traction which might include an element of AC ability

I’d say any decent electric traction would gain 15min against diesel if I used Wembley-Crewe as an example. Any liner over 1500 tons train weight, is usually notch 8 all the way, using a hell of a lot of fuel. Apart from Watford, you’re not usually getting above 50 until after Tring. Same issue climbing away from Northampton, especially with the current TSR’s there. If an electric can get up to 75 in a reasonable distance, and maintain it, that’s a lot of time being gained, and the option of better pathing With less chance of being put inside losing more time.

And that’s not counting the relief on the drivers eardrums lol.

 

[hwl]

Presumably 85mph if were splitting hairs, as NR only publish limits in increments of 5mph IIRC?

Will be interesting to see where the extra 15mph actually ends up unlocking faster paths. I imagine it will be quite helpful if approved.

It will only be useful in a relatively small number of locations opening up additional paths that would otherwise not be possible.

 

[800001]

I seem to recall an article (can't find it) , that Freight liner were looking to rewrite the timings for electric hauled freight trains as they have not alter for many may years.

Increased speed generates better paths, and can increase utilisation of the wagons, therefore earning more money.

I seem to recall the article may of been in Modern Railway. If I find the article I will post.

 

[hwl]

I’d say any decent electric traction would gain 15min against diesel if I used Wembley-Crewe as an example. Any liner over 1500 tons train weight, is usually notch 8 all the way, using a hell of a lot of fuel. Apart from Watford, you’re not usually getting above 50 until after Tring. Same issue climbing away from Northampton, especially with the current TSR’s there. If an electric can get up to 75 in a reasonable distance, and maintain it, that’s a lot of time being gained, and the option of better pathing With less chance of being put inside losing more time.

The usual issue is being stuck behind a LNWR all stops service before you get to Tring. The extra power and TE with electric then becomes very useful North of that.
Making the most out of electric haulage would need large scale timetable re drafts as you would change the order of services on the WCML slows but that would need most operators making the change.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Nov 2025 ==

I seem to recall an article (can't find it) , that Freight liner were looking to rewrite the timings for electric hauled freight trains as they have not alter for many may years.

Increased speed generates better paths, and can increase utilisation of the wagons, therefore earning more money.

I seem to recall the article may of been in Modern Railway. If I find the article I will post.

MR April 2025

 

[Class15]

MR April 2025

Thanks - I wonder if anyone can give a quote of the article?

 

[800001]

The usual issue is being stuck behind a LNWR all stops service before you get to Tring. The extra power and TE with electric then becomes very useful North of that.
Making the most out of electric haulage would need large scale timetable re drafts as you would change the order of services on the WCML slows but that would need most operators making the change.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Nov 2025 ==


MR April 2025

Ah thanks! Binned that issue that will be why I can't find it

 

[Unobrow]

The usual issue is being stuck behind a LNWR all stops service before you get to Tring. The extra power and TE with electric then becomes very useful North of that.
Making the most out of electric haulage would need large scale timetable re drafts as you would change the order of services on the WCML slows but that would need most operators making the change.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Nov 2025 ==


MR April 2025

Absolutely. Northbound freight off Wembley that isn’t electric hauled tends to be let out right after the stopper. I have wondered if it would work that it’s let out just in front of it with new more powerful traction. That way it’s got a free run, and wouldn’t catch up the previous unit for some time, if at all until Northampton or Rugby. There it could pass any Birmingham bound stoppers (if it had caught up) and be away to do battle at Brinklow instead lol.

 

[Nottingham59]

Absolutely. Northbound freight off Wembley that isn’t electric hauled tends to be let out right after the stopper. I have wondered if it would work that it’s let out just in front of it with new more powerful traction. That way it’s got a free run, and wouldn’t catch up the previous unit for some time, if at all until Northampton or Rugby. There it could pass any Birmingham bound stoppers (if it had caught up) and be away to do battle at Brinklow instead lol.

The Tring stopper looks like it does 32 miles in 38 minutes, so that should be quite possible.

 

[Lemmy282]

93001 just travelled back from Derby St.Andrews to Worksop, passed Beighton about 11:54

 

[Dood75]

And I understand 5 and 9 have moved from Worksop to Donny West Yard today as 0Q23

 

[ic31420]

2


But does 15 minutes actually matter greatly with a freight train?

My point was that that 15mins saved not faffing about changing locos or adding a shunter at the yard takes a hell of a lot of 90mph running over 75mph running to equal. It also consumes lot less energy. And you also have the savings of not having the other loco kicking around.


I'm not sure how congested terminals are, but if your train can get in and out without having to add another loco, the. detach another loco it can be in and out that much faster and the huge expensive yard/terminal assets can be busy loading and unloading the next train. Add up a few trains and you can squeeze in another service through the terminal per day or even shift, sweating those assets more.

Add up all the savings and the extra 50% the 93/99costs over a 66 looks not too bad.

 

[zwk500]

My point was that that 15mins saved not faffing about changing locos or adding a shunter at the yard takes a hell of a lot of 90mph running over 75mph running to equal. It also consumes lot less energy. And you also have the savings of not having the other loco kicking around.

And the staff savings of not needing a shunter.

90mph equates to 1 mile in 40 seconds. 75mph equates to 1 mile in 48 Seconds, so 8 Seconds a mile saving. 15 minutes is 900 seconds, and 900/8 = 112.5, so to save 15 minutes would require 112.5miles of continuous uplift of 75mph running to 90. (If I've got my maths right, very welcome to correction)

Spoiler: Show Your Working:

90mph/60 = 1.5miles a minute, 1.5*60 = 40 seconds per mile.
75mph/60 = 1.25miles a minute, 1.25*60 = 48 seconds per mile

48-40 = 8 seconds per mile difference

15mins*60 = 900 seconds.
900/8 = 112.5 miles for the time gain.

As ever, the best strategy to improving journey times is to avoid going slowly, rather than trying to go fast (or target floors not ceilings, if you will). And 0mph is the slowest speed of all!

I'm not sure how congested terminals are, but if your train can get in and out without having to add another loco, the. detach another loco it can be in and out that much faster and the huge expensive yard/terminal assets can be busy loading and unloading the next train. Add up a few trains and you can squeeze in another service through the terminal per day or even shift, sweating those assets more.

It also means less land and track assets as all you need is a simple run-round loop with single headshunt.

Add up all the savings and the extra 50% the 93/99costs over a 66 looks not too bad.

Indeed.

 

[47286Dan]

Monday afternoon moves

93001 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY F N
93002 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY F N
93003 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY F N
93004 GROG DONCWSTYD 230Q261M17 F WORKSP DY N
93005 GROG DONCWSTYD 230Q261M17 F WORKSP DY N
93006 GROG DONCWSTYD 230Q261M17 F WORKSP DY N
93007 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY F N
93008 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY F N
93009 GROG DONCWSTYD 230Q261M17 F WORKSP DY N
93010 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY F N

Dan

 

[Nell01joe]

Monday afternoon moves

93001 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY F N
93002 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY F N
93003 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY F N
93004 GROG DONCWSTYD 230Q261M17 F WORKSP DY N
93005 GROG DONCWSTYD 230Q261M17 F WORKSP DY N
93006 GROG DONCWSTYD 230Q261M17 F WORKSP DY N
93007 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY F N
93008 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY F N
93009 GROG DONCWSTYD 230Q261M17 F WORKSP DY N
93010 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY F N

Dan

Reports elsewhere that 008+010 have worked to Derby Monday afternoon 0Q57 16:05 Worksop Down Yard to Derby RTC

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:R22049/2025-11-17/detailed

 

[1D54]

A couple of these were on the freight line at Leicester at 14:00. Anyone have any idea which they were? Much appreciated.

 

[Bob figgis]

A couple of these were on the freight line at Leicester at 14:00. Anyone have any idea which they were? Much appreciated.

Im not sure about class 93s being at Leicester, but both 99s have had a run out this afternoon around this time.

Realtime Trains | 0Q51 1132 Leicester L.I.P. to Leicester L.I.P. | 19/11/2025

Real-time train running information for 0Q51 1132 departure from Leicester L.I.P. to Leicester L.I.P. on 19/11/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[1D54]

And that is all it could have been.. Thanks ever so much for your help Bob.