DRS Planning 10 X Mixed Traffic Locos

[GrimShady]

Several years delayed and withdrawn? What are you on about? Limited return to service? What?

Retention of third rail equipment costs little to nothing and adds future capability. What’s the argument here? It’s staying on the 92s as well.

So this is all about 37s.....that figures. 37s prove themselves every day in Cumbria.....

Must be school holidays.

Isn't there a higher chance of the 92 using third rail than a CS 73/9 which will spend most of its time north of the border?

 

[Photohunter71]

And if they are staying tight lipped about this order, which other locomotive builders would win such a contract? They haven't said much on the subject, so no-one knows if it's to be a Co-Co or Bo-Bo wheel arrangement, what engine they'll use and was it to be bi-mode? If so, why not just get a further batch of 88's? Or is that not part of their requirements?
However, once the network has more electrification, won't there be the push to switch to electric locomotives,of which we wouldn't have enough to cover duties for freight.

 

[Photohunter71]

From what I hear, DRS might not be the only TOC in the market for a few mixed traffic locos! And might not be the next to place an order!

Who else are in the market for new diesel mixed traffic loco's?

 

[GrimShady]

And if they are staying tight lipped about this order, which other locomotive builders would win such a contract? They haven't said much on the subject, so no-one knows if it's to be a Co-Co or Bo-Bo wheel arrangement, what engine they'll use and was it to be bi-mode? If so, why not just get a further batch of 88's? Or is that not part of their requirements?
However, once the network has more electrification, won't there be the push to switch to electric locomotives,of which we wouldn't have enough to cover duties for freight.

Shouldn't it be possible to order 68s and then rebuild them at a later stage to Class 88?

 

[Domh245]

Isn't there a higher chance of the 92 using third rail than a CS 73/9 which will spend most of its time north of the border?

The 92 is more likely to use the third rail than one of the teal painted 73s, but the 73 fleet is far more likely to use the third rail than the 92s (they use it full stop) - and it means that
a) design and development costs for the conversion were kept down by not needing to have a third rail and non-third rail variant
b) if come 2030 they aren't needed for sleeper services, they could still be put to use on departmental services around the country, including the South East

Shouldn't it be possible to order 68s and then rebuild them at a later stage to Class 88?

Doubt it, at least not at any sort of sensible cost. IME there aren't many things that are truly modular beyond the design phase. Maybe Stadler/Vossloh have been clever, but to my eyes, it looks like most of the body panels and roof would have to be replaced, and that's before you get to any internal and structural changes.

 

[JohnMcL7]

And if they are staying tight lipped about this order, which other locomotive builders would win such a contract? They haven't said much on the subject, so no-one knows if it's to be a Co-Co or Bo-Bo wheel arrangement, what engine they'll use and was it to be bi-mode? If so, why not just get a further batch of 88's? Or is that not part of their requirements?
However, once the network has more electrification, won't there be the push to switch to electric locomotives,of which we wouldn't have enough to cover duties for freight.

I would assume the 88's don't have enough power on diesel as the original article mentions they are to be replacements for 20's, 37's and 57's.

 

[CosherB]

Shouldn't it be possible to order 68s and then rebuild them at a later stage to Class 88?

You should work for DRS.

 

[PYROOGOBBO]

Could see it being more 68's

Maybe a co-co variant for intermodals/other freight ?

 

[Roast Veg]

We know Stadler (Vossloh as was) are reluctant to manufacture a Co-Co version of the product - they put on special demonstrations in an attempt to convince buyers that it wasn't required for the 68s.

 

[PYROOGOBBO]

had the idea of a Co-Co Version of a 68 Geared for 90 Mph or something to take over the 68's on intermodal/freight trains to release those 68's for other jobs / phase out any 37's 47's

Dunno why vossloh seemed unhappy to do it?

 

[JohnMcL7]

According to the wikipedia Eurolight page there was a proposed Asialight that would be Co-Co but I guess that didn't get any further as I can't find much else about it.

How important is a lower RA number?

 

[GrimShady]

You should work for DRS.

It's a valid point, it's happened before. After all entire ships have been converted from oil tankers to hospital vessels, container ships to cruise ships, passenger aircraft to cargo aircraft, turbo steam to piston steam, Class 74 etc.

Both designs area the same weight, I would expect the frames to be of a common design. All depends on if Vosshloh built the thing with a mind for future conversion. Do you know different?

 

[GrimShady]

had the idea of a Co-Co Version of a 68 Geared for 90 Mph or something to take over the 68's on intermodal/freight trains to release those 68's for other jobs / phase out any 37's 47's

Dunno why vossloh seemed unhappy to do it?

Maybe a large reduction in clearances for the equipment below the solebar or even a reduction in avaliable space for under slung equipment.

 

[cj_1985]

The Euro4000 is CoCo... So it's not like Vossloh/Stadler don't have experience with them

 

[the sniper]

The Euro4000 is CoCo... So it's not like Vossloh/Stadler don't have experience with them

And as I pointed out in post 89 with links, they advertised the co-co Asialight for years... If they didn't want to make it, why advertise it?

 

[Photohunter71]

My money is on the Siemens "Vectron" diesel engine variant in that case. I can't see the likes of G.E getting a contract due to the hash they made of the 70's, and I doubt Progress rail will either win or entertain the contract. Have Bombardier or Alsthom got anything? I still wouldn't rule out Stadler, but I'd say Voith won't be considered.
I'd be very, very surprised if they get a package from CNR Dalian such as those freight loco's for KiwiRail.

 

[ac6000cw]

There seems to be a lot of extrapolation going on here based on DRS saying they want to pension off (at least some of) the 20's, 37's and 57s they own, to assuming that they want to buy an equivalent to those types...

If they are sensible, they'd buy more 68's (updated to meet current emissions rules) or a very close relative of them e.g. a lower power V12 engined version if that's the only way to fit in the extra exhaust after-treatment equipment.

As a state-owned organisation, they have to go through the EU mandated procurement process for an order of this size, even if they know what they'd like to buy before they start.

They already know how to operate and maintain them and have warehouse full of spares for them at Crewe, so why introduce a new loco type to the fleet?

If NR have a need for low-axleload locos for the occasional engineering train on a line which otherwise only sees lightweight DMUs then that's NR's problem, not DRS's (and probably best solved by buying more self-propelled maintenance equipment - you could probably buy a sizeable fleet of road-rail tipper/hopper trucks for the cost of one modern loco...)

 

[HSTEd]

Wouldnt a 'Power Twin' MPV be approaching the power performance of a 37, and easily exceed a 20?

They could be used for RHTTs on the side.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Wouldnt a 'Power Twin' MPV be approaching the power performance of a 37, and easily exceed a 20?

They could be used for RHTTs on the side.

Articulated or multi-section locos with smaller engines in each section could well be a way of overcoming the space and weight issues. 20s usually operated as pairs coupled nose-to-nose back in BR days, which also solved the sighting issues encountered when running nose-first. There was also the small fleet of class 12s 13s (08s paired as master-slave units) that worked at Tinsley yard for a while. I've always wondered why the cabs were removed from the slave-units on those, as surely it would've made more sense to keep both cabs on the outer ends (class 20 style) to allow a better view for drivers? I suppose that may have been an added complexity on such primitive machines though!

 

[richieb1971]

The tinsley shunters were 13s

 

[Cowley]

Articulated or multi-section locos with smaller engines in each section could well be a way of overcoming the space and weight issues. 20s usually operated as pairs coupled nose-to-nose back in BR days, which also solved the sighting issues encountered when running nose-first. There was also the small fleet of class 12s (08s paired as master-slave units) that worked at Tinsley yard for a while. I've always wondered why the cabs were removed from the slave-units on those, as surely it would've made more sense to keep both cabs on the outer ends (class 20 style) to allow a better view for drivers? I suppose that may have been an added complexity on such primitive machines though!

Sorry to be pedantic but they were actually class 13s.
I always assumed that they were just treated as a double the power 08 for the humps in Tinsley Yard. Therefore the driver wouldn’t have to leave his cab when reversing just the same as a normal shunter.
The slave unit could then have its cab removed to help with visibility, which must’ve been quite restricted working nose first, even with the second cab removed...

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Sorry to be pedantic but they were actually class 13s.
I always assumed that they were just treated as a double the power 08 for the humps in Tinsley Yard. Therefore the driver wouldn’t have to leave his cab when reversing just the same as a normal shunter.
The slave unit could then have its cab removed to help with visibility, which must’ve been quite restricted working nose first, even with the second cab removed...

Always get that wrong! Cheers, will correct...

They were indeed intended to just be a more powerful version of the 08s, and to be fair were underused for most of their life, as marshalling yards and hump-shunting was largely phased out.

 

[ac6000cw]

Articulated or multi-section locos with smaller engines in each section could well be a way of overcoming the space and weight issues. 20s usually operated as pairs coupled nose-to-nose back in BR days, which also solved the sighting issues encountered when running nose-first. There was also the small fleet of class 12s 13s (08s paired as master-slave units) that worked at Tinsley yard for a while. I've always wondered why the cabs were removed from the slave-units on those, as surely it would've made more sense to keep both cabs on the outer ends (class 20 style) to allow a better view for drivers? I suppose that may have been an added complexity on such primitive machines though!

There's a fair number of ex-BR class 14's still around (only RA4, and 40 mph capable in theory) - NR could always hire a few from heritage railways if desperate for low-RA traction (I'll get my coat...)

 

[Chris125]

Shouldn't it be possible to order 68s and then rebuild them at a later stage to Class 88?

Happy to be corrected on this, but I seem to recall reading that 88s are slightly longer than the 68s - about a metre?

 

[LOL The Irony]

So according to another thread, they are "Class 93" so going by that, should be electric locomotives.

 

[randyrippley]

Surely what DRS really need are pairs of 37 replacements for the nuclear flask trains? Medium power, light axle load go-anywhere machines to be used as pairs because of the redundancy needed on the nuclear trips. A single cab modern equivalent of a class 20 could be the way to go: it must be easily possible to put 2000bhp into a simple cheap single cab solebar design weighing <60 tonnes.

 

[USRailFan]

Surely what DRS really need are pairs of 37 replacements for the nuclear flask trains? Medium power, light axle load go-anywhere machines to be used as pairs because of the redundancy needed on the nuclear trips. A single cab modern equivalent of a class 20 could be the way to go: it must be easily possible to put 2000bhp into a simple cheap single cab solebar design weighing <60 tonnes.

A UK-spec Voith Gravita?

 

[ac6000cw]

Surely what DRS really need are pairs of 37 replacements for the nuclear flask trains? Medium power, light axle load go-anywhere machines to be used as pairs because of the redundancy needed on the nuclear trips. A single cab modern equivalent of a class 20 could be the way to go: it must be easily possible to put 2000bhp into a simple cheap single cab solebar design weighing <60 tonnes.

Most of the cost of a modern loco is in the equipment installed in it and the (labour intensive) assembly cost - if it's low-power you are only going to save a bit on the engine and some of the traction equipment (and one cab if it's a single-cab design). Waving a very wet finger, a modern 'class 20' equivalent might be 3/4 of the cost of a 68 maybe?

Those sort of numbers I suspect is why BR didn't go ahead with the 'class 38' project (to produce a Type-3 replacement) in the 1980s - the 'return on investment' is poor.

If you want pairs of cheap-ish lightweight 'traction units', wait until some HST power cars become redundant (at near scrap value), get Wabtec to re-gear them for 80 mph and use those to top-and-tail nuclear flask wagon trains...

 

[ac6000cw]

A UK-spec Voith Gravita?

...or a Vossloh 'G' series diesel-hydraulic (slimmed down).

 

[CosherB]

Most of the cost of a modern loco is in the equipment installed in it and the (labour intensive) assembly cost - if it's low-power you are only going to save a bit on the engine and some of the traction equipment (and one cab if it's a single-cab design). Waving a very wet finger, a modern 'class 20' equivalent might be 3/4 of the cost of a 68 maybe?

Those sort of numbers I suspect is why BR didn't go ahead with the 'class 38' project (to produce a Type-3 replacement) in the 1980s - the 'return on investment' is poor.

If you want pairs of cheap-ish lightweight 'traction units', wait until some HST power cars become redundant (at near scrap value), get Wabtec to re-gear them for 80 mph and use those to top-and-tail nuclear flask wagon trains...

No .... the likelihood of using HSTs on freight is zero.