Class 93 Tri-mode Loco

[HST125Scorton]

93009 has preformed very well this week on the 4Q27/4Q45 diagram. From my contact at DRS the drivers are very impressed. 93009 wagon load will increase from 15 twins to 18 twins tomorrow evening if all goes well.

 

[cce]

Can a 93 multi work with 88s and 68s?

 

[RichardAsh1981]

Can a 93 multi work with 88s and 68s?

Given all three classes have AAR jumper sockets, almost certainly at a base level. The non-leading locomotive will largely be left to its own devices however, so I am not sure how you would deal with traction change over and the like.

 

[43096]

Given all three classes have AAR jumper sockets

They don't.

 

[Richard Scott]

Given all three classes have AAR jumper sockets, almost certainly at a base level. The non-leading locomotive will largely be left to its own devices however, so I am not sure how you would deal with traction change over and the like.

Don't they all also have some kind of TDM capabilities?
Didn't think all had AAR, only a few 68s that were fitted for Chiltern work along with the 93s?

 

[172007]

Don't they all also have some kind of TDM capabilities?
Didn't think all had AAR, only a few 68s that were fitted for Chiltern work along with the 93s?

68 does not have a pantograth down / up button so would still have the same issue as witj working with an 88. The 88 has to lead when on AC so the pantaraph can be dropped if an obstruction etc on the overhead wires is seen.

 

[43096]

Don't they all also have some kind of TDM capabilities?
Didn't think all had AAR, only a few 68s that were fitted for Chiltern work along with the 93s?

The native multi-working system is WTB (wire train bus) using UIC jumper cables.

 

[Richard Scott]

The native multi-working system is WTB (wire train bus) using UIC jumper cables.

Which I'd imagine is some form of TDM?

 

[D1511]

Just passed 93009 on 4Q27 at Carlisle Upperby.
Didn't count the megafrets though, so don't know if it's still 15 or 18.

 

[Covshire1]

Just passed 93009 on 4Q27 at Carlisle Upperby.
Didn't count the megafrets though, so don't know if it's still 15 or 18.

7049010424 IDA
6849096621 IKA
7049010127 IDA
7049010341 IDA
6849430663 IKA
8049091614 IKA
6849094873 IKA
8049090418 IKA
6849099757 IKA
6849099807 IKA
7049010622 IDA
6849093735 IKA
7049010747 IDA
7049010630 IDA
6849096209 IKA
6849430895 IKA

 

[D1511]

7049010424 IDA
6849096621 IKA
7049010127 IDA
7049010341 IDA
6849430663 IKA
8049091614 IKA
6849094873 IKA
8049090418 IKA
6849099757 IKA
6849099807 IKA
7049010622 IDA
6849093735 IKA
7049010747 IDA
7049010630 IDA
6849096209 IKA
6849430895 IKA

Thanks, so 16 twins then.......and it was heavily loaded

 

[Harlequinuk]

2 weeks trial is now finished, 4Q45 and 4Q27 are now deactivated; from 23/07 4M27 is reactivated.

4S45 is running on 22/07

 

[47286Dan]

Monday morning update

93001 GROG CLAPHMJYD 876Q581E27 D * DERBY LIT N
93002 GROG CREWE SYD GRESTYBGE N
93003 GROG CREWE SYD GRESTYBGE N
93004 GROG CREWE SYD GRESTYBGE N
93005 GROG CLAPHMJYD 876Q581E27 D * DERBY LIT N
93006 GROG CREWE SYD GRESTYBGE N
93007 GROG GRESTYBGE GRESTYBGE F N
93008 GROG CREWE SYD GRESTYBGE N
93009 GROG GRESTYBGE GRESTYBGE F N
93010 GROG GRESTYBGE GRESTYBGE F N

Dan

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Jul 2026 ==

Tuesday morning update

93001 GROG DERBY LIT 570N421E28 F GRESTYBGE N
93002 GROG CREWE SYD GRESTYBGE N
93003 GROG CREWE SYD GRESTYBGE N
93004 GROG CREWE SYD GRESTYBGE N
93005 GROG DERBY LIT 570N421E28 F GRESTYBGE N
93006 GROG CREWE SYD GRESTYBGE N
93007 GROG GRESTYBGE GRESTYBGE F N
93008 GROG CREWE SYD GRESTYBGE N
93009 GROG GRESTYBGE GRESTYBGE F N
93010 GROG GRESTYBGE GRESTYBGE F N

Dan

 

[Noseygit]

I’m guessing that we are going to have no more than the 10 we currently have as they are underused in my opinion

 

[Mollman]

I’m guessing that we are going to have no more than the 10 we currently have as they are underused in my opinion

Without speculating too much, it depends on how well the various trials go. Whilst ROG might not order any more, DRS or Freightliner might order their own (or via a leasing company) if suitably impressed

 

[zwk500]

I’m guessing that we are going to have no more than the 10 we currently have as they are underused in my opinion

Aren't they still effectively in the trials stage?

 

[Adrian Barr]

[posted 18th July] 93009 has performed very well this week on the 4Q27/4Q45 diagram. From my contact at DRS the drivers are very impressed. 93009 wagon load will increase from 15 twins to 18 twins tomorrow evening if all goes well.

I didn't manage to record the weight on other northbound runs, but did note that the consist for 4Q45 on Sunday 19th July showed 1431 tons trailing, with 17 intermodal twins (16 loaded and 1 empty). Gross laden wagon weights on this run can vary quite a lot (typically between 60 and 90 tons for a loaded twin depending on container contents), so this was a heavily laden service by usual standards. Timing load was 1400 tons, which would be the normal weight limit for a single 88.

On this occasion (on the 19th July) 4Q45 departed over an hour late at 17:35. It recovered to 51 late by Wigan, was 55 late after being regulated through Preston, then had a clear run which gave some interest insights into performance. 4Q45 remained around 55 late (give or take a couple of minutes here and there) passing Tebay 57 late and Shap Summit 56 late, i.e. without losing time on the climb up Shap. The schedule allowed 6 and a half minutes from Tebay to Shap Summit. 4Q45 was looped at Penrith to allow 1S02 to pass, which had followed it from Preston. 1S02 was 25 late through Penrith as a result. 1S02 had been 14 late through Lancaster right behind 4Q45, meaning that on the 51 mile section from there to Penrith (including Shap bank) it lost 11 minutes following it. This doesn't seem too bad considering the weight 93009 was pulling, compared with the delay which would have been incurred if a 66 was slogging up Shap with the same load.

Although there would have been sufficient layover time at Carlisle to depart on time, 4Q45 departed 31 late (I think it was following delayed passenger trains). It lost a few more minutes by Lockerbie due a signalling issue, passing there 36 late and reaching Carstairs 34 late, after which it lost a few more minutes due to regulation and was diverted via Holytown, reaching Coatbridge 49 late. As for the climb up Beattock, it was 35 late at Beattock and 36 late at Beattock summit, with 13 minutes allowed between the two points - not bad considering it was pulling slightly in excess of the timing load.

Surely DRS aren't thinking of leasing the locos unless they see them as a way of going all electric on their WCML flows?

I don't know anything beyond what I've read in this thread, but 47286Dan's comment in post #2494 about the lease for the 88s being up in 2027 strikes me as being potentially significant. I think the 93s could be a good option to replace 88s on Daventry - Coatbridge services. Single 88s sometimes struggle with the weight in poor weather conditions, and require double-heading in the autumn leaf-fall season. With 93009 working 9 services in each direction between the 12th and 22nd July (not just a single demonstration run as happened with DB and Freightliner on this route), it looks like the option is being seriously considered.

While on this topic, I might as well quote the relevant bit of a post I made in the thread about the adhesion problems occasionally encountered by single 88s on 4S43 doing the same Daventry - Coatbridge run:

The [adhesion] issues with 88s over Shap and Beattock are well known. I think the problem with using single 88s on 4S43 is that the timing load - the "tonnage which a nominated train is deemed as being able to convey in order to maintain point to point running times" is evidently quite close to, and sometimes exceeds, the absolute maximum that the loco can cope with in poor weather conditions.

1400 tons is not a particularly heavy load, even up Shap, so having regular issues with this weight has to be considered as an issue with the type of loco used. 1400 tons over Shap can be considered a moderate weight which a modern freight loco should be able to handle on its own all year round, including autumn and winter.

I think single 88s are more suitable for less steeply graded routes such as Tilbury to Daventry or Daventry to Trafford Park, but that geographical limitation seriously limits their usefulness as a freight loco when the WCML from London to Scotland is the main artery for electric freight. I suppose the underlying issue is that the freight operators as a whole don't currently have the right mix of traction for Anglo-Scottish intermodal, with the 88s and 90s having weight and adhesion limitations when used singly, and 66s being reliable but too slow up the gradients. It would be interesting to know how the class 93s would have performed with the same train in the same conditions - when doing a google search I read an AI summary (which appeared to be drawing on info from a paywalled article) which said that the class 93 wheelslip prevention system is better than the one on the otherwise similar class 88s.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...tbridge-drs-service-17-12.296248/post-7655774

===============================

I've never been entirely clear on the precise technical differences / improvements which seem to make 93s preferable to 88s in terms of their haulage capabilities up gradients in electric mode, but the comments by Adrian Nicholls (read the caption to his photo linked below) about the loco's performance on February's Seaforth - Mossend trial are interesting:

93006 at Carlisle on 4Q38 Seaforth - Mossend intermodal trial on 10/02/26:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/36034969@N08/55095958926/ (Photo: Adrian Nicholls)

In the comments under the photo I wrote the following:

I've often wondered if the 93s would perform better than the 88s on the Tesco intermodals (1400 ton timing load) over Shap and Beattock, especially during Autumn when they need double-heading with the current traction. The trial in November with the same 93006 loco on 4S48 Daventry - Mossend had 1533 tons trailing, and was reported as taking 6 minutes from Tebay to Shap Summit and 20 mins from Beattock to Beattock Summit.

With the design of the 93 being based on the 88 I've never been too clear on what makes the 93 better than the 88 when running on electric power (in terms of wheelslip control and haulage capability) so the comment about superior acceleration and creep control is interesting.

The reply from Adrian Nicholls is interesting:

Adrian Nicholls wrote: I am just a mere driver albeit with a few years experience on lots of different locos so its hard for me to comment on some of the more technical aspects. I gather the yaw dampers on a class 93 are stiffer which prevents the loco shuffling when it starts to slip under load, this may well allow the computer creep control system to be more precise when putting the power down as it would hold a more straight line on the rail head. It's just a thought.

The detailed technical aspects are beyond me, but the general performance of the 93 has been encouraging for a Bo-Bo machine. If the 93s are given a chance and can reliably manage the DRS Anglo-Scottish intermodals from Daventry solo (particularly during the autumn and winter) they could hopefully solve the problem of 88s needing to be double-headed in autumn and occasionally slipping to a stand on this route in bad weather. The 93s have been tested with 1800 tons of box wagons up Shap in less-than-perfect weather conditions, so even allowing for the additional length and rolling / wind resistance of a long intermodal train, I'm cautiously optimistic they could manage 1400 tons successfully on a regular basis. Year-round performance would be the ultimate test of whether solo Bo-Bo machines are adequate on this route, or if a Co-Co machine like a 99 is needed (66s are reliable but too slow up the gradients, which causes pathing problems compared to the timings used for electrics).

If anyone knows more about the technical differences / improvements between class 88 and 93 that would make a difference on this route, I'd be interested to hear about them.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I didn't manage to record the weight on other northbound runs, but did note that the consist for 4Q45 on Sunday 19th July showed 1431 tons trailing, with 17 intermodal twins (16 loaded and 1 empty). Gross laden wagon weights on this run can vary quite a lot (typically between 60 and 90 tons for a loaded twin depending on container contents), so this was a heavily laden service by usual standards. Timing load was 1400 tons, which would be the normal weight limit for a single 88.

On this occasion (on the 19th July) 4Q45 departed over an hour late at 17:35. It recovered to 51 late by Wigan, was 55 late after being regulated through Preston, then had a clear run which gave some interest insights into performance. 4Q45 remained around 55 late (give or take a couple of minutes here and there) passing Tebay 57 late and Shap Summit 56 late, i.e. without losing time on the climb up Shap. The schedule allowed 6 and a half minutes from Tebay to Shap Summit. 4Q45 was looped at Penrith to allow 1S02 to pass, which had followed it from Preston. 1S02 was 25 late through Penrith as a result. 1S02 had been 14 late through Lancaster right behind 4Q45, meaning that on the 51 mile section from there to Penrith (including Shap bank) it lost 11 minutes following it. This doesn't seem too bad considering the weight 93009 was pulling, compared with the delay which would have been incurred if a 66 was slogging up Shap with the same load.

Although there would have been sufficient layover time at Carlisle to depart on time, 4Q45 departed 31 late (I think it was following delayed passenger trains). It lost a few more minutes by Lockerbie due a signalling issue, passing there 36 late and reaching Carstairs 34 late, after which it lost a few more minutes due to regulation and was diverted via Holytown, reaching Coatbridge 49 late. As for the climb up Beattock, it was 35 late at Beattock and 36 late at Beattock summit, with 13 minutes allowed between the two points - not bad considering it was pulling slightly in excess of the timing load.



I don't know anything beyond what I've read in this thread, but 47286Dan's comment in post #2494 about the lease for the 88s being up in 2027 strikes me as being potentially significant. I think the 93s could be a good option to replace 88s on Daventry - Coatbridge services. Single 88s sometimes struggle with the weight in poor weather conditions, and require double-heading in the autumn leaf-fall season. With 93009 working 9 services in each direction between the 12th and 22nd July (not just a single demonstration run as happened with DB and Freightliner on this route), it looks like the option is being seriously considered.

While on this topic, I might as well quote the relevant bit of a post I made in the thread about the adhesion problems occasionally encountered by single 88s on 4S43 doing the same Daventry - Coatbridge run:



===============================

I've never been entirely clear on the precise technical differences / improvements which seem to make 93s preferable to 88s in terms of their haulage capabilities up gradients in electric mode, but the comments by Adrian Nicholls (read the caption to his photo linked below) about the loco's performance on February's Seaforth - Mossend trial are interesting:

93006 at Carlisle on 4Q38 Seaforth - Mossend intermodal trial on 10/02/26:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/36034969@N08/55095958926/ (Photo: Adrian Nicholls)

In the comments under the photo I wrote the following:



The reply from Adrian Nicholls is interesting:



The detailed technical aspects are beyond me, but the general performance of the 93 has been encouraging for a Bo-Bo machine. If the 93s are given a chance and can reliably manage the DRS Anglo-Scottish intermodals from Daventry solo (particularly during the autumn and winter) they could hopefully solve the problem of 88s needing to be double-headed in autumn and occasionally slipping to a stand on this route in bad weather. The 93s have been tested with 1800 tons of box wagons up Shap in less-than-perfect weather conditions, so even allowing for the additional length and rolling / wind resistance of a long intermodal train, I'm cautiously optimistic they could manage 1400 tons successfully on a regular basis. Year-round performance would be the ultimate test of whether solo Bo-Bo machines are adequate on this route, or if a Co-Co machine like a 99 is needed (66s are reliable but too slow up the gradients, which causes pathing problems compared to the timings used for electrics).

If anyone knows more about the technical differences / improvements between class 88 and 93 that would make a difference on this route, I'd be interested to hear about them.

It would be interesting to see how well 89001 would cope with its 50% extra axles.

After all 89001 was developed for a reason and it was the ability to lay more tractive effort down on the rails. Obviously traction control electronics have improved BUT there is still a limit per axle that no trickery will be able to get beyond on a wet and leafy night.

As a side idea maybe the 88s will get a new lease at a lower rate and get used with 93s but only in the appropriate seasons.

 

[bahnause]

It would be interesting to see how well 89001 would cope with its 50% extra axles.

After all 89001 was developed for a reason and it was the ability to lay more tractive effort down on the rails. Obviously traction control electronics have improved BUT there is still a limit per axle that no trickery will be able to get beyond on a wet and leafy night.

It would not cope at all with a meager maximum tracion effort of 205kN (105kN continuous), an axle load of only 17,5 tons and the DC traction motors probably only being able to maintain this for a few minutes before they die due to the heat.

 

[HST125Scorton]

Just an update from my contact at DRS, There will be another 1 or 2 week run of using 93s on one of the intermodals during October mentioning the Tesco Intermodal. Ideally testing out performance during leaf fall and wet slippy rail conditions on Shap and Beattock. With this in mind and the future of the 88s heading back to Beacon Rail in 2027, the 93s will "maybe replacing" the 88s in 2027 pending how well the next lot of testing in October goes. It will see the use of the 93s on Russell's Intermodals (Sun 4M82); 4M49-4S44, 4M27-4S45. 4S43-4M48 and 4H43-4B43 Tesco Circuits.

 

[AndrewE]

Just an update from my contact at DRS, There will be another 1 or 2 week run of using 93s on one of the intermodals during October mentioning the Tesco Intermodal. Ideally testing out performance during leaf fall and wet slippy rail conditions on Shap and Beattock. With this in mind and the future of the 88s heading back to Beacon Rail in 2027, the 93s will "maybe replacing" the 88s in 2027 pending how well the next lot of testing in October goes. It will see the use of the 93s on Russell's Intermodals (Sun 4M82); 4M49-4S44, 4M27-4S45. 4S43-4M48 and 4H43-4B43 Tesco Circuits.

I imagine there will be conditions and train weight combinations that would defeat even a miracle Bo-Bo loco... let's hope they don't baulk at putting 2 on, either 1 dead in train as an insurance or 2 in multiple, each using half the power. It would be a shame if these gained a reputation for poor reliability too...

 

[Class15]

Just an update from my contact at DRS, There will be another 1 or 2 week run of using 93s on one of the intermodals during October mentioning the Tesco Intermodal. Ideally testing out performance during leaf fall and wet slippy rail conditions on Shap and Beattock. With this in mind and the future of the 88s heading back to Beacon Rail in 2027, the 93s will "maybe replacing" the 88s in 2027 pending how well the next lot of testing in October goes. It will see the use of the 93s on Russell's Intermodals (Sun 4M82); 4M49-4S44, 4M27-4S45. 4S43-4M48 and 4H43-4B43 Tesco Circuits.

So no 4L48/4M77?

 

[HST125Scorton]

So no 4L48/4M77?

Eventually they could do yes. I will find out more when I get information. At the moment they are focusing on the Scottish flows and the Manchester flow.

 

[Adrian Barr]

Just an update from my contact at DRS, There will be another 1 or 2 week run of using 93s on one of the intermodals during October mentioning the Tesco Intermodal. Ideally testing out performance during leaf fall and wet slippy rail conditions on Shap and Beattock. With this in mind and the future of the 88s heading back to Beacon Rail in 2027, the 93s will "maybe replacing" the 88s in 2027 pending how well the next lot of testing in October goes. It will see the use of the 93s on Russell's Intermodals (Sun 4M82); 4M49-4S44, 4M27-4S45. 4S43-4M48 and 4H43-4B43 Tesco Circuits.

Very interesting, thanks. I think it's a good idea to test them during autumn.

-------------------------------------------
Current TOPS locations at 19:00 Sunday (all at Crewe):

93001 Crewe Gresty Bridge
93002 Crewe South Yard
93003 Crewe South Yard
93004 Crewe Gresty Bridge
93005 Crewe Gresty Bridge
93006 Crewe Gresty Bridge
93007 Crewe South Yard
93008 Crewe South Yard
93009 Crewe Gresty Bridge
93010 Crewe Gresty Bridge

 

[Peter Sarf]

Very interesting, thanks. I think it's a good idea to test them during autumn.

-------------------------------------------
Current TOPS locations at 19:00 Sunday (all at Crewe):

93001 Crewe Gresty Bridge
93002 Crewe South Yard
93003 Crewe South Yard
93004 Crewe Gresty Bridge
93005 Crewe Gresty Bridge
93006 Crewe Gresty Bridge
93007 Crewe South Yard
93008 Crewe South Yard
93009 Crewe Gresty Bridge
93010 Crewe Gresty Bridge

I suppose that means ROG stock moves to/from Derby (for me in London) are even more likely to be 37s then ?.

I think Crewe South Yard only got emptied of 93s while DRS were trialling them over the fells.

 

[alm37]

Very interesting, thanks. I think it's a good idea to test them during autumn.

-------------------------------------------
Current TOPS locations at 19:00 Sunday (all at Crewe):

93001 Crewe Gresty Bridge
93002 Crewe South Yard
93003 Crewe South Yard
93004 Crewe Gresty Bridge
93005 Crewe Gresty Bridge
93006 Crewe Gresty Bridge
93007 Crewe South Yard
93008 Crewe South Yard
93009 Crewe Gresty Bridge
93010 Crewe Gresty Bridge

Are these allocations still current please? 01/09/10 are all confirmed at Gresty Bridge, and there are 4 93s in Crewe South Yard.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Are these allocations still current please? 01/09/10 are all confirmed at Gresty Bridge, and there are 4 93s in Crewe South Yard.

If by "and there are 4 93s in Crewe South Yard" you mean in @Adrian Barr 's report dated Sunday 02/08/2026 at 19:00 at Crewe South Yard - Then I suspect the weekend has seen four 93s move back to Crewe South Yard from Crewe Gresty. They were more/all at Crewe Gresty in preceding week(s) while DRS were using them.

There were 4 or 6 (from memory) 93s at Crewe South Yard before the DRS runs on the Northern WCML using them started. So I suspect that's all over now until October.

 

[craigybagel]

I’m guessing that we are going to have no more than the 10 we currently have as they are underused in my opinion

Without speculating too much, it depends on how well the various trials go. Whilst ROG might not order any more, DRS or Freightliner might order their own (or via a leasing company) if suitably impressed

It's 5 years since they were ordered, 2 years since they were built, and beyond some trials still no confirmation that anybody actually wants to use them long term. It's pretty hard to see a rationale for ordering any more.....

 

[HST125Scorton]

Current TOPS locations at 19:00 Monday 03/08, pretty much same as last night:

93001 GROG GRESTYBGE GRESTYBGE
93002 GROG CREWE SYD CREWE SYD
93003 GROG CREWE SYD CREWE SYD
93004 GROG CREWE SYD GRESTYBGE
93005 GROG GRESTYBGE GRESTYBGE
93006 GROG CREWE SYD GRESTYBGE
93007 GROG CREWE SYD CREWE SYD
93008 GROG CREWE SYD CREWE SYD
93009 GROG GRESTYBGE GRESTYBMD
93010 GROG GRESTYBGE GRESTYBGE

 

[alm37]

Current TOPS locations at 19:00 Monday 03/08, pretty much same as last night:

93001 GROG GRESTYBGE GRESTYBGE
93002 GROG CREWE SYD CREWE SYD
93003 GROG CREWE SYD CREWE SYD
93004 GROG CREWE SYD GRESTYBGE
93005 GROG GRESTYBGE GRESTYBGE
93006 GROG CREWE SYD GRESTYBGE
93007 GROG CREWE SYD CREWE SYD
93008 GROG CREWE SYD CREWE SYD
93009 GROG GRESTYBGE GRESTYBMD
93010 GROG GRESTYBGE GRESTYBGE

Thanks for posting this.