• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

GBRf Class 99 - 30 locomotives now ordered

ac6000cw

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2014
Messages
3,910
Location
Cambridge, UK
It might make sense for the 99s to be deployed on the caley sleepers, so if they are receiving ETS for the Mk5s, I imagine they would fit the full shebang rather than "lite" for north of Edinburgh
The current GBRf sleeper haulage contract announcement in 2023 (for 7 years) did mention the possible use of 99s in the future - https://www.gbrailfreight.com/gb-ra...al-to-support-new-era-for-caledonian-sleeper/
Operations will continue to use Class 92s and Class 73s to haul the service, with the length of the new agreement offering the potential opportunity to consider incorporating GBRf’s new bi-mode Class 99 locomotives in the future. Utilising the Class 99s would create a significant reduction in the volume of carbon created by the service.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Green tractor

Member
Joined
30 Aug 2019
Messages
236
Location
Lancaster

xotGD

Established Member
Joined
4 Feb 2017
Messages
7,872
"volume of carbon"

Cubic metres of diamonds?

Perhaps they mean mass of carbon dioxide.
 

99009

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2025
Messages
314
Location
Chesterfield
The current GBRf sleeper haulage contract announcement in 2023 (for 7 years) did mention the possible use of 99s in the future - https://www.gbrailfreight.com/gb-ra...al-to-support-new-era-for-caledonian-sleeper/
Thanks @ac6000cw for posting. This, as far as I know, is still the current mid to long term plan and has been ever since this announcement 2 years ago. Test the existing order of 99's (99001-99030) now on normal GBRF freight services or test runs and over the next couple of years, see what they're capable of by gathering real-world data. Then, should the contract with CS be extended from the current end date of June 2030 and should the tests be successful, order a passenger version of 99's to replace the 73's and 92's.

Now, does anyone know please if 99002 is still at Leicester after its return from Loughborough last week?
 
Last edited:

BlueLeanie

On Moderation
Joined
21 Jul 2023
Messages
723
Location
Haddenham
No they wouldn’t be able to divert via ECML. As that takes considerable planning and resource to crew those trains when they are pre-planned to run that way.

Whereas, in reality, the Haltwhistle line, and Dumfries line hould be electrified with a diversionary plan in place to allow a textbook diversion of any WCML services.
 

Peter Mugridge

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
17,839
Location
Epsom
I have seen online "suggestions" about the 99021-99030 being built with ETS but it is probably supposition, and I would have expected GBRf to have specified it at the contract stage. However, I believe there is a gap between building the first few of the class, and the rest, in order for tweaks to be made o he design, so maybe that could fit.
It occurs to me that surely this is different enough that they would instead be a new sub-class and come out as 99 101 to 99 110 if it happens...?
 

Lknowles78

Member
Joined
14 Sep 2014
Messages
28
991xx number range has been used by the Britannic Explorer that only guzillionnaires will ever use
 

ac6000cw

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2014
Messages
3,910
Location
Cambridge, UK
It occurs to me that surely this is different enough that they would instead be a new sub-class and come out as 99 101 to 99 110 if it happens...?
Traditionally they'd be 99 401 to 99 410 (as per 47/4, 31/4, 37/4 etc.) as an ETS equipped sub-class (yeah, I know the 45/1 were an exception to that...).

Are they fast enough to match the timings under wires?
IIRC, the idea is that the 'mixed traffic' version with ETS would also have a higher top speed. The 92s are only 87 mph max anyway.
 
Last edited:

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
13,181
Traditionally they'd be 99 401 to 99 410 (as per 47/4, 31/4, 37/4 etc.) as an ETS equipped sub-class (yeah, I know the 45/1 were an exception to that...).
The Class 57s are also an exception. But yes it has been stated that GBRf are looking at ’bringing back’ the /4 subclass for ETS fitted Class 99s.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
18,819
Traditionally they'd be 99 401 to 99 410 (as per 47/4, 31/4, 37/4 etc.) as an ETS equipped sub-class (yeah, I know the 45/1 were an exception to that...).
It’s chance that the ETH fitted sub-classes were /4. They just took the next available sub-class range.
 

Trainbike46

Established Member
Joined
18 Sep 2021
Messages
4,374
Location
belfast
If they used 99's on the trunk Highland trains, the 99 could work throughout from Euston to Inverness and would give a saving of 2 locomotives on what is currently used.
How did you end up with a saving of 2 locomotives if using 99s throughout?
 

Trainbike46

Established Member
Joined
18 Sep 2021
Messages
4,374
Location
belfast
There are normally 2 locos on the front of the Inverness portion.
I know some portions are usually double-headed. Assuming this only applies to inverness, that gives a saving of one loco, as the same pair of locos does both the northbound and the southbound every night.

However, I was wondering how @Green tractor concluded replacing the highlander locos both north and south of Edinburgh could lead to a saving of two locos in total.
 

800001

Established Member
Joined
24 Oct 2015
Messages
7,368
I know some portions are usually double-headed. Assuming this only applies to inverness, that gives a saving of one loco, as the same pair of locos does both the northbound and the southbound every night.

However, I was wondering how @Green tractor concluded replacing the highlander locos both north and south of Edinburgh could lead to a saving of two locos in total.
1 x 99 Euston to Inverness
1 x 99 Inverness to Euston
Removing the use of a 66+73 between Edinburgh and Inverness’s
Equals two locos saved?
 

ac6000cw

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2014
Messages
3,910
Location
Cambridge, UK
1 x 99 Euston to Inverness
1 x 99 Inverness to Euston
Removing the use of a 66+73 between Edinburgh and Inverness’s
Equals two locos saved?
That was my take on it too - and doubtless something to be factored into a decision to buy (or not) some mixed-traffic versions.
 

xotGD

Established Member
Joined
4 Feb 2017
Messages
7,872
That was my take on it too - and doubtless something to be factored into a decision to buy (or not) some mixed-traffic versions.
They could swap out the entire fleet of 92s and 73s to 99s. Single loco type, maximising use of electrified lines, maximum operational flexibility.
 

Trainbike46

Established Member
Joined
18 Sep 2021
Messages
4,374
Location
belfast
1 x 99 Euston to Inverness
1 x 99 Inverness to Euston
Removing the use of a 66+73 between Edinburgh and Inverness’s
Equals two locos saved?
A sound theory, but it doesn't quite work, as it ignores the use of pilot locomotives, and the fact that locos are shared between the lowlander and highlander. There is also the fact the train reverses at Edinburgh, but that is likely resolvable.

The way to work out any changes in numbers of locos needed is to make an overview of both the current loco use, and a proposed future use of locos, and see what the difference is.

By my count, the current situation is:
1x 92 London-Glasgow
1x 92 Glasgow-London
1x 92 Euston Pilot (for both Highlander and lowlander)
1x 92 Glasgow Pilot
1x 92 Lowlander Edinburgh-Carstairs-Edinburgh
1x 92 Highlander London-Edinburgh + morning Edinburgh Pilot duty
1x 92 Evening Edinburgh pilot duty + Edinburgh-London Highlander

1x 73 West Highland
1x 73 + 1x 66 Inverness
1x 73 Aberdeen

Total 7x 92 + 3x 73 +1x 66, for a total of 11 locos
I'm not fully sure I got the north of Edinburgh Highlander locos right, so if someone has better information please correct me!

So if you replace the Inverness 66 and 73 with a 99, and run it through to Euston, you'd end up with something like:

1x 92 London-Glasgow
1x 92 Glasgow-London
1x 92 Euston Pilot (for both Highlander and lowlander)
1x 92 Glasgow Pilot
1x 92 Lowlander Edinburgh-Carstairs-Edinburgh
1x 99 Highlander London-Edinburgh + Inverness portion
1x 99 Inverness portion + Edinburgh-London Highlander
1x 92 Edinburgh Pilot

1x 73 or 99 West Highland
1x 73 or 99 Aberdeen

So a total of 6x 92, 2x 99, 2x 73 or 99, for a total of 10 locos

That gives a saving of 1 loco - where is the second saving coming from?
 

BRX

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
4,515
The Edinburgh pilot is for taking Lowlander ECS to and from the station, is that right?
Can't that / isn't that be done by the same loco that does Edinburgh-Carstairs-Edinburgh? It's easy to run round at Edinburgh unlike Glasgow & Euston.

(Additionally the Fort William portion often has two locos on it, which potentially could be replaced by a single 99?)
 

Trainbike46

Established Member
Joined
18 Sep 2021
Messages
4,374
Location
belfast
The Edinburgh pilot is for taking Lowlander ECS to and from the station, is that right?
That is the purpose, yes.
Can't that / isn't that be done by the same loco that does Edinburgh-Carstairs-Edinburgh? It's easy to run round at Edinburgh unlike Glasgow & Euston.
That may be an option.
(Additionally the Fort William portion often has two locos on it, which potentially could be replaced by a single 99?)
If there is two locos on any of the other highlander portions, that is a potential for a further saving, yes. Though that isn't a saving enabled by using 99s on the Inverness portion specifically.
 

BRX

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
4,515
I don't entirely understand why he says you're not going to see these in Portsmouth or Hastings because that's third rail country. Surely the reason you're unlikely to see them in those places is that there's not freight traffic. Third rail routes are no different to any other routes without overhead lines...unless you've got a third rail locomotive you're willing to use, which they don't.
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
13,181
Quite telling that it's fitted with a DRA. Gives a hint to intent perhaps.
Easier to spec all locomotives with it from the get-go? Rather than subfleets of 99s with/without DRA.
 

Green tractor

Member
Joined
30 Aug 2019
Messages
236
Location
Lancaster
A sound theory, but it doesn't quite work, as it ignores the use of pilot locomotives, and the fact that locos are shared between the lowlander and highlander. There is also the fact the train reverses at Edinburgh, but that is likely resolvable.

The way to work out any changes in numbers of locos needed is to make an overview of both the current loco use, and a proposed future use of locos, and see what the difference is.

By my count, the current situation is:
1x 92 London-Glasgow
1x 92 Glasgow-London
1x 92 Euston Pilot (for both Highlander and lowlander)
1x 92 Glasgow Pilot
1x 92 Lowlander Edinburgh-Carstairs-Edinburgh
1x 92 Highlander London-Edinburgh + morning Edinburgh Pilot duty
1x 92 Evening Edinburgh pilot duty + Edinburgh-London Highlander

1x 73 West Highland
1x 73 + 1x 66 Inverness
1x 73 Aberdeen

Total 7x 92 + 3x 73 +1x 66, for a total of 11 locos
I'm not fully sure I got the north of Edinburgh Highlander locos right, so if someone has better information please correct me!

So if you replace the Inverness 66 and 73 with a 99, and run it through to Euston, you'd end up with something like:

1x 92 London-Glasgow
1x 92 Glasgow-London
1x 92 Euston Pilot (for both Highlander and lowlander)
1x 92 Glasgow Pilot
1x 92 Lowlander Edinburgh-Carstairs-Edinburgh
1x 99 Highlander London-Edinburgh + Inverness portion
1x 99 Inverness portion + Edinburgh-London Highlander
1x 92 Edinburgh Pilot

1x 73 or 99 West Highland
1x 73 or 99 Aberdeen

So a total of 6x 92, 2x 99, 2x 73 or 99, for a total of 10 locos

That gives a saving of 1 loco - where is the second saving coming from?
What's the Edinburgh pilot? The loco that does the Edinburgh portion of the lowlands works the relevant ECS. The loco of the northbound Highland stables at Edinburgh Waverley all day.
 

99009

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2025
Messages
314
Location
Chesterfield
Just in case anyone was wondering, 0Q94 Leicester L.I.P. - Peterboro Maint Shed Gbrf on Monday was 66313+99001+99002. 69009 wasn't on this working as RTT suggests, but 99002 was.

0Q94:

Because 0Q94 above wasn't correct on RTT*, can anyone therefore please confirm with 100% certainty what was on this 0Q93 working below last night? :?:

0Q93 Peterboro Maint Shed Gbrf - P'boro Eastfield Jn 01/07/25:

*Not a jab at RTT, which is excellent, I know these things can happen, just wanted to post the gen in case some people weren't aware.
 

Spartacus

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2009
Messages
3,828
Just in case anyone was wondering, 0Q94 Leicester L.I.P. - Peterboro Maint Shed Gbrf on Monday was 66313+99001+99002. 69009 wasn't on this working as RTT suggests, but 99002 was.

0Q94:

Because 0Q94 above wasn't correct on RTT*, can anyone therefore please confirm with 100% certainty what was on this 0Q93 working below last night? :?:

0Q93 Peterboro Maint Shed Gbrf - P'boro Eastfield Jn 01/07/25:

*Not a jab at RTT, which is excellent, I know these things can happen, just wanted to post the gen in case some people weren't aware.

Trust is showing 66701, 99001 & 66780, but then it was Trust that was showing 69009 on the 30th (initially it had nothing, quite an omission for a Q headcode). Let's say GBRf have previous with incorrectly allocated locos, if you look closely sometimes you'll find a loco allocated to a working that would be quite impossible given what it's worked previously or subsequently.... I never quite 100% trust what GBRf have put in...
 

Top