GBRf Class 99 - 30 locomotives now ordered

[800001]

Fair enough but that still sounds like a trip to a depot job, reducing the flexibility of the locos. Obviously if they order more it may be different but assuming they stick with 30 having two small subfleets of 20 and 10 seems a lot less efficient than one fleet of 30.

Why a depot job? They would do it when they are being built? Or prior to entering service?

 

[hwl]

According to what was said by (GBRf's) Bob Tiller in the recent Green Signals video (from 4:49), raising the top speed only involves changing the bogie dampers and a software change. So the 99/4s should be just as capable hauling freight as the 99/0s when they're not required for passenger use, and will doubtless do so. In reality, at 113t the 99's are lighter than or similar weight to a class 47 or 57, so should be fine passenger locos. I'm a bit surprised the data table on the cab side (shown in the video) says RA7, given the sub-19t axle-load (which is nominally RA5/RA6 territory):

View attachment 183217

Also, the current GBRf sleeper haulage contract announcement in 2023 (for 7 years) mentions the possible use of 99s in the future - https://www.gbrailfreight.com/gb-ra...al-to-support-new-era-for-caledonian-sleeper/ , so the 99/4s should be hauling more than the Belmond trains in the future.

The light weight and hence axle loadings keeps the track access charges low and make it possible to run at 140/160kmh without much modification (higher max speed requires lower track forces). It also needs higher adhesion / coefficient of friction assumptions.

 

[Noddy]

Why a depot job? They would do it when they are being built? Or prior to entering service?

I agree but I think you missed the point I’m making around operational efficiency of having two small sub fleet of Class 99s (one to run the very occasional Belmond service/possibly Caledonian sleepers, the other freight) vs one uniform fleet. It would also suggest they don’t think they have enough freight work to keep all 30 profitably running. Assuming they only order 30.

 

[800001]

I’m sure Gbrf know what they are doing, the always seem to be one of the very ‘clued’ up freight companies.

 

[Trainbike46]

I agree but I think you missed the point I’m making around operational efficiency of having two small sub fleet of Class 99s (one to run the very occasional Belmond service/possibly Caledonian sleepers, the other freight) vs one uniform fleet. It would also suggest they don’t think they have enough freight work to keep all 30 profitably running. Assuming they only order 30.

The way I've read what has been said, the 99/4s would be extra locos using the options from the existing contract, so if that's correct the fleet will be 30 75mph 99s without ETH, and 10 100 mph 99s with ETH. Looking at GBRf's track record, I think they'll find work for all of them, and probably some more.

In any case, if they order ten 99/4s, they'll have a plan for what to do with them. That may well include using them on freight rruns some of the time, but there's no reason it couldn't do that without any modifications.

 

[ac6000cw]

It would also suggest they don’t think they have enough freight work to keep all 30 profitably running.

Why does it suggest that? I think all they're doing is increasing their fleet capability, to better cater for (possibly more profitable) passenger work when they can get it.

I’m sure Gbrf know what they are doing, the always seem to be one of the very ‘clued’ up freight companies.

I agree.

 

[Northerngirl]

It makes sense to me for them to get the /4s even if the don't have a use right now, at worst they've spent a few hundred thousand extra (complete guess of a number but it sounds a simple conversion) on the order, and it gives them the flexibility to offer very capable locos on tours like this and maybe even a proof of concept for a bigger loco haul contract in the future (mk5s?)

 

[Noddy]

Why does it suggest that? I think all they're doing is increasing their fleet capability, to better cater for (possibly more profitable) passenger work when they can get it.

Purely on the assumption that they are sticking to 30 and not ordering more.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jul 2025 ==

The way I've read what has been said, the 99/4s would be extra locos

Where has anyone said this though?

Everyone including myself seem to be full of assumptions!

 

[Trainbike46]

Purely on the assumption that they are sticking to 30 and not ordering more.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jul 2025 ==



Where has anyone said this though?

Everyone including myself seem to be full of assumptions!

I do not have any confirmation, no!

I guess we'll see what happens, but I'm sure it will turn out well whether these are extra locomotives or part of the original 30

 

[nigelsporne]

Just a couple of simple questions:
Have GBRf taken up the option for the full 30 locos?
Will GBRf be slimming down their portfolio of different locos in due course?
With GBRf being our most progressive freight operator there must be a Master Plan.

 

[SansHache]

While modifying the locos for 100mph operation may only require a software change and modified dampers, adding ETH capability would require redesign of the Main Transformer to add an Electric Train Supply (ETS) winding, plus associated switchgear, wiring and ETS jumpers. Class 92 locos provide a 1500V supply for the Caledonian Sleeper vehicles.

 

[Class15]

Just a couple of simple questions:
Have GBRf taken up the option for the full 30 locos?
Will GBRf be slimming down their portfolio of different locos in due course?
With GBRf being our most progressive freight operator there must be a Master Plan.

I wonder if, following the introduction of the Class 99s, GBRf could effectively cut its ‘freight’ (not sleeper) loco fleet to two types, 66 and 99. Probably need to retain the couple of 92s for Tunnel work though.

 

[cj_1985]

Unlikely, considering that the most recent 69 only entered traffic last month, and they'll (the 69 fleet) probably be on lease for atleast 10 years from EMD/Progress Rail

 

[sjpowermac]

I wonder if, following the introduction of the Class 99s, GBRf could effectively cut its ‘freight’ (not sleeper) loco fleet to two types, 66 and 99. Probably need to retain the couple of 92s for Tunnel work though.

Lots of rumours that the GBRf Class 60s won’t be with the company in 2026.

 

[ac6000cw]

While modifying the locos for 100mph operation may only require a software change and modified dampers, adding ETH capability would require redesign of the Main Transformer to add an Electric Train Supply (ETS) winding, plus associated switchgear, wiring and ETS jumpers. Class 92 locos provide a 1500V supply for the Caledonian Sleeper vehicles.

As the 99s are bi-mode (and hence need to be able to supply ETS when running on diesel as well as on AC), wouldn't the ETS power come from the internal traction power bus via a static converter? AFAIK that's how it's done on the 68s (and I guess the 88s and 93s - anyone know?).

(Or for passenger use you could probably manage with using only five inverters for traction and use the 6th one to supply ETS i.e. rectify its output to DC, assuming the inverter can output the necessary 1500V for the Mk5 sleepers. The Alaska Railroad has some SD70MAC's which do this when hauling passenger trains, in that case to supply US standard 480V 60Hz 3-phase ETS).

 

[43096]

The Alaska Railroad has some SD70MAC's which do this when hauling passenger trains, in that case to supply US standard 480V 60Hz 3-phase ETS

The SD70MACH conversions that are now in service with Metra in Chicago have apparently been modified to Bo1-1Bo configuration from Co-Co with one of the now spare inverters used for train supply and one a "spare" that can be used as a traction converter or for HEP.

 

[JKF]

GWR could probably do with some for their sleeper service given the failures/availability issues with the class 57s in recent times. Could they sub this out to GBRF or would they need to order and lease their own?

 

[wickham]

Why a depot job? They would do it when they are being built? Or prior to entering service?

It may well be a pretty simple mod to make some 99s suitable for passenger working as stated, but it would not be a case of changing them from one spec to the other on an "as required" basis, this is just not possible and it would require TOPS to be changed every time, not a simple matter itself. If there are to be some for passenger work they will be built like that and will stay like that !

 

[800001]

It may well be a pretty simple mod to make some 99s suitable for passenger working as stated, but it would not be a case of changing them from one spec to the other on an "as required" basis, this is just not possible and it would require TOPS to be changed every time, not a simple matter itself. If there are to be some for passenger work they will be built like that and will stay like that !

i have never and I can’t recall anyone saying they would be changed everytime.
Of course if they are built for passenger use they will stay like that, no one has said otherwise

 

[cce]

It sounds like the changes enable higher speed without necessarily removing other abilities to me. 59/2 had yaw dampers added to allow 75 instead of 60mph but (I believe) otherwise perform the same as 59/0 and 1

 

[Wyrleybart]

Fair enough but that still sounds like a trip to a depot job, reducing the flexibility of the locos. Obviously if they order more it may be different but assuming they stick with 30 having two small subfleets of 20 and 10 seems a lot less efficient than one fleet of 30.

I suspect it would actually be more than just a trip to the depot because apart from the yaw dampers, the software on the loco will need changing, possibly also cab signage for max speed etc.
It would be my guess that Stadler will build some with the ETS supply and once the initial build of 99s have settled into traffic and proved their capabilities, then the ETS variant will be commissioned and enter traffic as 991xx, remaining in that configuration.

 

[43096]

I suspect it would actually be more than just a trip to the depot because apart from the yaw dampers, the software on the loco will need changing, possibly also cab signage for max speed etc.
It would be my guess that Stadler will build some with the ETS supply and once the initial build of 99s have settled into traffic and proved their capabilities, then the ETS variant will be commissioned and enter traffic as 991xx, remaining in that configuration.

They are unlikely to be 991xx as the Belmond Britannic Explorer vehicles are numbered in that series.

 

[Wyrleybart]

They are unlikely to be 991xx as the Belmond Britannic Explorer vehicles are numbered in that series.

That is a good point but bounces back to why they cannot use prefixes. There were certainly more than one piece of rolling stock with the same number back 30-40 years ago. One I recall were the Procor box wagons 31xx which had the same numbers as some Mk1 FOs, probably also 32xx and 33xx with the same numbers as Mk2 FOs. Surely a loco could be distinguished from rolling stock if the latter have prefixes as TOPS clearly takes account of that.

 

[43096]

That is a good point but bounces back to why they cannot use prefixes. There were certainly more than one piece of rolling stock with the same number back 30-40 years ago. One I recall were the Procor box wagons 31xx which had the same numbers as some Mk1 FOs, probably also 32xx and 33xx with the same numbers as Mk2 FOs. Surely a loco could be distinguished from rolling stock if the latter have prefixes as TOPS clearly takes account of that.

Just use the European Vehicle Number - all vehicles already have them allocated.

 

[themiller]

Just a couple of simple questions:
Have GBRf taken up the option for the full 30 locos?
Will GBRf be slimming down their portfolio of different locos in due course?
With GBRf being our most progressive freight operator there must be a Master Plan.

According to the Stadler website, 30 locos are currently on order.

Reference project: Class 99 for Beacon Rail | Stadler

Stadler, Beacon Rail, and GB Railfreight (GBRf) signed an agreement in 2022 for 30 Class 99 bimodal locomotives, including spare parts.

www.stadlerrail.com

In April 2022, Stadler, Beacon Rail and GB Railfreight (GBRf) signed an agreement for the supply of thirty Class 99 bimode locomotives including spare parts....

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jul 2025 ==

That is a good point but bounces back to why they cannot use prefixes. There were certainly more than one piece of rolling stock with the same number back 30-40 years ago. One I recall were the Procor box wagons 31xx which had the same numbers as some Mk1 FOs, probably also 32xx and 33xx with the same numbers as Mk2 FOs. Surely a loco could be distinguished from rolling stock if the latter have prefixes as TOPS clearly takes account of that.

With the advent of EVNs, how does TOPS cope with rolling stock which has only a EVN? I’ve noticed a fair few vehicles without a TOPS number.

 

[zwk500]

With the advent of EVNs, how does TOPS cope with rolling stock which has only a EVN? I’ve noticed a fair few vehicles without a TOPS number.

They will have a TOPS number allocated, and it can be aligned in the 'national block' of the EVN. The EVN has a 4-digit section for the national type number and a 3-digit section for the national serial number of that type.

 

[hwl]

While modifying the locos for 100mph operation may only require a software change and modified dampers, adding ETH capability would require redesign of the Main Transformer to add an Electric Train Supply (ETS) winding, plus associated switchgear, wiring and ETS jumpers. Class 92 locos provide a 1500V supply for the Caledonian Sleeper vehicles.

As the 99s are bi-mode (and hence need to be able to supply ETS when running on diesel as well as on AC), wouldn't the ETS power come from the internal traction power bus via a static converter? AFAIK that's how it's done on the 68s (and I guess the 88s and 93s - anyone know?).

(Or for passenger use you could probably manage with using only five inverters for traction and use the 6th one to supply ETS i.e. rectify its output to DC, assuming the inverter can output the necessary 1500V for the Mk5 sleepers. The Alaska Railroad has some SD70MAC's which do this when hauling passenger trains, in that case to supply US standard 480V 60Hz 3-phase ETS).

What if the main transformer already had the extra secondary winding for the ETS and just no ETS inverter fitted (e.g pre-planned standard and 1500V ETS capability at the design stage)
Diesel is a bit more challenging as it would need to be taken from one of the DC buses like the aux load supplies.
Supplying ETS on diesel will quickly eat into the power available for traction which points to being targeted at short trains (e.g. Caledonian Aberdeen / Fort William portions or GWR Cornish sleeper) off the wires or a generator vehicle being used for longer trains (e.g. Belmond).

In terms of the current electrification of the highlander / ECS sleeper routes north of Edinburgh:
Fort William: 67 of 167 miles (40%) [Also see GBRf thinking on alumina traffic covered several pages ago]
Aberdeen: 41 of 161 miles (25%)
Inverness: 41 of 187 miles (21%)
ECS Polmadie - Edinburgh: 55 of 55 miles (100%)

Which produces a huge number of permutations of vaguely sensible traction options involving 99s and some of the existing traction.

 

[wickham]

i have never and I can’t recall anyone saying they would be changed everytime.
Of course if they are built for passenger use they will stay like that, no one has said otherwise

What is Noddy inferring in post 690 then? But, I do agree with what 80001 has said !

 

[xotGD]

10 ETH 99s should be able to replace all of the existing Sleeper locos. No need for faffing about with 66+73 combos. You could have a couple of 92s available as back-ups (in particular for London ecs), just like 90s were used in the past.

 

[ac6000cw]

What if the main transformer already had the extra secondary winding for the ETS and just no ETS inverter fitted (e.g pre-planned standard and 1500V ETS capability at the design stage)

Thanks for the info - I bow to your inside knowledge . So they might already have the ETS wiring installed too?

Out of interest, does the main transformer have multiple secondary windings to feed the traction inverters e.g. one per inverter?

Diesel is a bit more challenging as it would need to be taken from one of the DC buses like the aux load supplies.
Supplying ETS on diesel will quickly eat into the power available for traction which points to being targeted at short trains (e.g. Caledonian Aberdeen / Fort William portions or GWR Cornish sleeper) off the wires or a generator vehicle being used for longer trains (e.g. Belmond).

I agree about diesel + ETS being effectively limited to lower ETS loads (in normal usage), but I guess having a high enough output for a full Caley sleeper load might be useful for unplanned diversions etc.