GBRf Class 99 - 30 locomotives now ordered

[DelW]

Oh god, of course, got myself very muddled there, sorry!

No problem, I've done the same myself in the past .

 

[Richard Scott]

What is the fuel tank capacity on the 99s as I imagine that will be a considerable factor on where these end up on diesel mode. Also the loss off 550hp is no small thing....whether the modern internals of the 99s offset that we will have to see.

A 500hp loss not biggest problem especially as an AC drive will make that even less of an issue. Outright power only needed if the trailing load needs to go fast so expect 2750hp with an AC drive will maintain 75mph with little difficulty. As more of the system becomes electrified it becomes even less significant.

 

[Wyrleybart]

What is the fuel tank capacity on the 99s as I imagine that will be a considerable factor on where these end up on diesel mode. Also the loss off 550hp is no small thing....whether the modern internals of the 99s offset that we will have to see.

Not so sure it is an issue. Don't some operators already fuel at selected locations ? Just need to arrange a bunded fuel tank on the site for topping up. How long do diesels currently stand around waiting for the trains to be tipped or stripped and reloaded ?

There used to be a lot of talk about how class 66s needed the absolute maximum possible capacity fuel tank, but there cannot be so many diagrams where the locos are worked continuously without an hour to pump some gas oil into the tank.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 May 2022 ==

Just a minor point, the EMD 4-motor design (SD70ACE-P4) has the two innermost axles unpowered, so is B1-1B in US parlance, not A1A-A1A.

Thanks for that Del. I am guessing the EMD design has changed the basics from the video of the GE ES44C4 posted upthread where the air cylinders lifted the centre bogie wheelset on the AC44.

 

[DelW]

Thanks for that Del. I am guessing the EMD design has changed the basics from the video of the GE ES44C4 posted upthread where the air cylinders lifted the centre bogie wheelset on the AC44.

I have to admit that I've no idea what EMD's rationale is for choosing their layout. I can't think of any other designs that use it, though that doesn't mean that there isn't something somewhere that does.

 

[43096]

I have to admit that I've no idea what EMD's rationale is for choosing their layout. I can't think of any other designs that use it, though that doesn't mean that there isn't something somewhere that does.

Did GE have some sort of patent/IPR on the A1A-A1A with weight adjustment kit, so EMD went for Bo1-1Bo to avoid any issues?

 

[ac6000cw]

Did GE have some sort of patent/IPR on the A1A-A1A with weight adjustment kit, so EMD went for Bo1-1Bo to avoid any issues?

That's always been my assumption too, but based on this comment from an old post on the Trains magazine forum it's probably not the main reason:

Also, from Tom Mack on loco notes:

It has to do with the design of the EMD HTC and HTC-R truck. When the truck flexes under load (torque) you actually get better adhesion with the B1 design vs. A1A on this particular truck.

Also, note that the wheel arrangement would be as stated in the Trains magazine article, B1-1B, not B1-B1 as stated in some earlier posts. This is because all the traction motors face inward toward the fuel tank on EMD C-C locomotives using the HTC and HTC-R trucks. So it is the inboard motor that is removed to create the B1 truck, and since the trucks mount in opposite directions at each end of the locomotive you get a B1-1B wheel arrangement.

It's a bit moot anyway, since EMD/Progress Rail have only sold/leased out a relative handful of SD70ACe-P4 & SD70ACeP4-T4 (about 25 in total?) versus GE/Wabtec selling over 1500 of their equivalent.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 May 2022 ==

A 500hp loss not biggest problem especially as an AC drive will make that even less of an issue. Outright power only needed if the trailing load needs to go fast so expect 2750hp with an AC drive will maintain 75mph with little difficulty. As more of the system becomes electrified it becomes even less significant.

It might hold 75mph no problem on the reasonably flat, but it'll take longer to get to 75mph and be slower on climbs - the AC-drive improves the low speed acceleration/hill climbing ability, but with only 2750hp on diesel it'll reach the power-limited part of the tractive effort curve at quite low speed. On the basis of the figures I've seen, the AC-drive might gain you about 5% in efficiency, which is only about 140hp - almost insignificant, really.

But of course once it gets under the OHLE it'll romp away, with power-at-rail equivalent to 3 x cl.66...

As background, below is the tractive effort curve for a US GE/Wabtec ES44AC, with calculated 'power at rail' information added. The transmission efficiency works out at about 90%. (This is for a pretty much state-of-the-art AC-drive six-axle, 190 tonne, US heavy-haul loco, rated at 4400 hp 'available for traction', about 4700-4800 hp at the crankshaft. Info from https://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/topic/es44ac-traction-curve?reply=12974798589607206#12974798589607206 )

 

[Nottingham59]

Getting back to the Class 99s, which freight flows do people think they will be most used? The 500kN tractive effort means they can handle the heaviest quarry trains, but with a power output of 6MW under the wires I'd expect them to come into their own up gradients like Beattock and Shap etc. where I understand slow freights cause all sorts of timetabling issues with faster passenger trains on a electrified twin track lines. By how much would capacity be increased on the Northern WCML if all the freights were using electric power?

 

[childwallblues]

Getting back to the Class 99s, which freight flows do people think they will be most used? The 500kN tractive effort means they can handle the heaviest quarry trains, but with a power output of 6MW under the wires I'd expect them to come into their own up gradients like Beattock and Shap etc. where I understand slow freights cause all sorts of timetabling issues with faster passenger trains on a electrified twin track lines. By how much would capacity be increased on the Northern WCML if all the freights were using electric power?

Shap-Tuebrook-Ashton stone.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Getting back to the Class 99s, which freight flows do people think they will be most used? The 500kN tractive effort means they can handle the heaviest quarry trains, but with a power output of 6MW under the wires I'd expect them to come into their own up gradients like Beattock and Shap etc. where I understand slow freights cause all sorts of timetabling issues with faster passenger trains on a electrified twin track lines. By how much would capacity be increased on the Northern WCML if all the freights were using electric power?

I reckon the sleeper would be a good place to put them.

 

[43096]

I reckon the sleeper would be a good place to put them.

A 75mph loco isn't what the sleeper needs.

 

[ExRes]

I reckon the sleeper would be a good place to put them.

They are freight locos for freight work, sleeper duties would be a criminal waste of their availability

 

[LOL The Irony]

A 75mph loco isn't what the sleeper needs.

Well a further order that includes 100mph versions for the sleeper wouldn't go amiss.

They are freight locos for freight work, sleeper duties would be a criminal waste of their availability

Not necessarily, considering they are bi-modes. It'd be a good test of their viability on such routes with both long runs under and without wires.

 

[ExRes]

Well a further order that includes 100mph versions for the sleeper wouldn't go amiss.

Not necessarily, considering they are bi-modes. It'd be a good test of their viability on such routes with both long runs under and without wires.

These locos are for freight and max out at 75mph, hopes for other versions should be on the speculative thread, not this one

 

[ac6000cw]

A news article in June Modern Railways says the Class 99 diesel engine will be a Cummins QSK50 rated at 1800kW (2413hp). The article says it's a V12, but according to Cummins the QSK50 is a V16...

Incidentally, this brochure about rail applications for the QSK50 has an entertaining major error in the caption for one of the pictures - https://mart.cummins.com/imagelibrary/data/assetfiles/0032208.pdf - see if you can spot it

 

[fgwrich]

A news article in June Modern Railways says the Class 99 diesel engine will be a Cummins QSK50 rated at 1800kW (2413hp). The article says it's a V12, but according to Cummins the QSK50 is a V16...

Incidentally, this brochure about rail applications for the QSK50 has an entertaining major error in the caption for one of the pictures - https://mart.cummins.com/imagelibrary/data/assetfiles/0032208.pdf - see if you can spot it

It’s such an easy mistake to make, I mean I’m always confusing Canada with Sweden. They’re both cold aren’t they?

 

[Peter Sarf]

A news article in June Modern Railways says the Class 99 diesel engine will be a Cummins QSK50 rated at 1800kW (2413hp). The article says it's a V12, but according to Cummins the QSK50 is a V16...

Incidentally, this brochure about rail applications for the QSK50 has an entertaining major error in the caption for one of the pictures - https://mart.cummins.com/imagelibrary/data/assetfiles/0032208.pdf - see if you can spot it

So it is Sweden (maybe) but they spell litres the North American way.

 

[Nottingham59]

the Class 99 diesel engine will be a Cummins QSK50 rated at 1800kW (2413hp)

So quite a bit less diesel power than a Class 66 (2460kW at the engine), but more tractive effort (500kN vs 409kN). 6000kW under the wires. These are going to be pretty impressive locomotives!

(By comparison, the Class 93 is a lightweight: 1300kW with battery assist on diesel, and 4000kW under the wires. I wonder how they will compare on running costs?)

 

[ac6000cw]

So it is Sweden (maybe) but they spell litres the North American way.

The location of the Cummins brochure photo on page 3 is 'Morant's Curve' east of Lake Louise, AB in Western Canada (named after a photographer who took a lot of publicity shots there for Canadian Pacific years ago). The loco in the photo is a GE/Wabtec product (an AC4400CW or ES44AC) - definitely not powered by a QSK50 !

Attached is a snapshot from a video of mine at that location (in not-so-good weather) - compare the red CP loco, the river and the mountains.

 

[43096]

The location of the Cummins brochure photo on page 3 is 'Morant's Curve' east of Lake Louise, AB in Western Canada (named after a photographer who took a lot of publicity shots there for Canadian Pacific years ago). The loco in the photo is a GE/Wabtec product (an AC4400CW or ES44AC) - definitely not powered by a QSK50 !

They didn’t photoshop out the number board on the far side, which identifies it as an ES44AC.

 

[ac6000cw]

They didn’t photoshop out the number board on the far side, which identifies it as an ES44AC.

Thanks - the number is 8792? (also zooming in a lot shows the radiator 'wings' to be the ES44 version - my usual 'spotting' differentiator, as they change thickness part way along)

So quite a bit less diesel power than a Class 66 (2460kW at the engine), but more tractive effort (500kN vs 409kN). 6000kW under the wires. These are going to be pretty impressive locomotives!

(By comparison, the Class 93 is a lightweight: 1300kW with battery assist on diesel, and 4000kW under the wires. I wonder how they will compare on running costs?)

At 6MW on electric, they'll be most powerful locos on the NR network. Some of the Chunnel shuttle locos are more powerful at 7MW, but they are essentially captive to that system.

A class 91 has more power per axle (1.2MW versus 1MW) but that's a 'racehorse' passenger loco with much lower maximum tractive effort.

 

[Nottingham59]

At 6MW on electric, they'll be most powerful locos on the NR network.

So how fast will they be able to pull heavy stone trains up electrified gradients like Shap, Beattock, Lickey etc.?

EDIT: On a 1% gradient, a 1000T intermodal will need a drawing force of 10T=100kN to maintain speed. So these should be able to keep to line speed.

A 2000T train on a 2% gradient will need 400kN. Which at 6MW is 15m/s = 33mph. (Ignoring rolling and wind resistance and transmission losses.) Lickey is 2.65%.

 

[172007]

So how fast will they be able to pull heavy stone trains up electrified gradients like Shap, Beattock, Lickey etc.?

EDIT: On a 1% gradient, a 1000T intermodal will need a drawing force of 10T=100kN to maintain speed. So these should be able to keep to line speed.

A 2000T train on a 2% gradient will need 400kN. Which at 6MW is 15m/s = 33mph. (Ignoring rolling and wind resistance and transmission losses.) Lickey is 2.65%.

Is the OHLE upto the job? Might they be restricted to only one each way between feeders on tjw WCML. Would the ECML cope at all with a 6MW loco?

 

[ac6000cw]

Is the OHLE upto the job? Might they be restricted to only one each way between feeders on tjw WCML. Would the ECML cope at all with a 6MW loco?

An 11 car Pendolino is about the same power rating (and 2 x 5-car IET is probably only a bit less) so I'd guess they'd be OK, and they're not due until 2025 by which time hopefully the ECML power upgrades will be completed?

In any case I'm sure they could easily be equipped with selectable power limiting capability in the software (like modern EMUs have in 3rd rail areas).

 

[Nottingham59]

Is the OHLE upto the job?

Dunno. But at least NR have a reason now to start upgrading the wires if necessary. And it's a lot cheaper to add OHLE capacity rather than quadding the WCML over Shap if they want to add more paths to a congested railway.

And a good reason to bring forward any plans to electrify Kidderminster to Dorridge up the Old Hill bank.

 

[ac6000cw]

And a good reason to bring forward any plans to electrify Kidderminster to Dorridge up the Old Hill bank.

For which freight flows, and how many freights per hour?

 

[Nottingham59]

For which freight flows, and how many freights per hour?

I understood from the Class 93 thread that the Wentloog-Daventry Tesco service is often routed that way, instead of up the Lickey incline. I can't quote it, as that thread is closed to further entries.

But maybe that's not true; there don't seem to be many freight paths in the current timetable through Old Hill.

I'd rephrase to say the Class 99 could add to the business case to electrify steep gradients, where there are no wires at present, and where slow freights use up capacity in the network. The Dore South curve would fit that description on the MML.

 

[172007]

For which freight flows, and how many freights per hour?

Not many, Old Hill tunnel is severely route restricted. Standard containers on Mega Frets are restricted to 5 or 15 mph on the Up line and I don't think standard containers can be conveyed on anything but a low deck flat wagon. Restricted what can be sent up that route. Think the down line won't even accept standard containers on Mega Frets as if the Tesco liner can't go down the Lickey Bank it goes via Crewe and Shrewsbury.

 

[Peter Sarf]

They didn’t photoshop out the number board on the far side, which identifies it as an ES44AC.

Well spotted.

 

[Dave W]

I understood from the Class 93 thread that the Wentloog-Daventry Tesco service is often routed that way, instead of up the Lickey incline.

It is, passes Cradley Heath most weeknights at around 2210. My brother’s house faces the railway on the site of what was Cradley Print (for those not familiar with the area just on the Birmingham side of the station). It’s been that way for some time, it’s not just a diversion.

When I go up to visit if I’m there late I’ll always stick my head out his front door to get a view of it starting the hard slog up the bank.

Earlier tonight: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:H28734/2022-05-27/detailed

I didn’t know about the severity of restrictions in the tunnel though, thanks 172007

 

[ac6000cw]

I'd rephrase to say the Class 99 could add to the business case to electrify steep gradients, where there are no wires at present, and where slow freights use up capacity in the network. The Dore South curve would fit that description on the MML.

I doubt it would make any real difference - irrespective of the length of the electrification, you still have to provide (considerable) power to it, so an isolated length of electrification for a few miles of gradient would be pretty expensive to implement.

I would hope that Dore South curve would get electrified as part of the MML electrification project (to allow for traction mode changeovers away from the mainline at least), and that electrification on to Hazel Grove would happen in due course.

For freight, I think the Felixstowe branch (a freight mainline really, with over 70 freights per day) and the missing 'link lines' around London and other places have to be the priority for electrification.