GBRf Class 99 - 30 locomotives now ordered

[Bertie the bus]

Yes - here regarding 93s and Freightliner:

Establishing a secure connection ...

More recently I have heard from a source (not public) that they are planned to be trialled out of Gateway and that Felixstowe is going to be difficult for the 93s.


I suspect all container trains hauled by 99s out of Felixstowe will have to run via London. Don’t know for sure, but it seems a bit much to use a Class 37 equivalent on 775m intermodals.

So the answer to my question is no. That article is 18 months old and you have some secret, local source.

 

[Nottingham59]

Felixstowe - Peterborough via Ely and v/v performance on diesel won't be spectacular and challenging to run in day time.

There's plenty of diesel-hauled freight paths on that route in the timetable already. Acceleration performance won't be an issue for 99s, surely?

 

[Class15]

There's plenty of diesel-hauled freight paths on that route in the timetable already. Acceleration performance won't be an issue for 99s, surely?

The 99’s power on diesel is considerably worse than a 66. I can’t see the 99s being used on Felixstowe services via Ely but happy to be proved wrong!

 

[Nottingham59]

The 99’s power on diesel is considerably worse than a 66. I can’t see the 99s being used on Felixstowe services via Ely but happy to be proved wrong!

My understanding is that a 99 can deliver 1600kW at the rail, compared to 1800kW for a 66. That doesn't seem to be all that much difference, or have I misunderstood something here?

 

[berwicksfinest]

The 99’s power on diesel is considerably worse than a 66. I can’t see the 99s being used on Felixstowe services via Ely but happy to be proved wrong!

From the big boys chair, I personally work for another FOC, again I only use up to notch 7 (a long story)

From Felixstowe I can quite happily keep time using notch 7 ( for a 66 thats 2,390 hp (Yes figures taken from data meter on EMDEC).
I believe the 99 is 2.400 hp on diesel.

So how will it have problems lifing a liner ??

 

[Nottingham59]

A 93 will struggle with long container services on the northern WCML due to the large aerodynamic drag /rolling resistance and sustained steep gradients (not tested so far...)

Well a 93 pulled 2000t over Shap at 30mph, so pretty good going. 4000kW on AC should be enough for an intermodal on the WCML.

#ianwalmsley #railoperationsgroup #networkrail #freightliner | Rail Operations Group | 20 comments

Quietly and without any fuss, 93006 and these two chaps made a little bit of rail industry history last night. Based on the Class 93 testing results to date, the test train weight was increased last night to 2,100 tonnes and they struck out from Crewe for Carlisle. In AC mode, the train...

www.linkedin.com

Quietly and without any fuss, 93006 and these two chaps made a little bit of rail industry history last night.

Based on the Class 93 testing results to date, the test train weight was increased last night to 2,100 tonnes and they struck out from Crewe for Carlisle. In AC mode, the train stormed Shap on the Down and breasted the summit at over 30mph. In addition, the service actually gained time against a schedule for a train 200 tonnes lighter. On the return journey, and from a standing start, 93006 achieved 50+ mph on the ascent up to Shap summit.

 

[Richard Scott]

Is is a problem on route where you need max power though.

Things have move on a lot since the Class 58 era.

Which as was stated is around 3% of the time, doubt that's changed much since 58 era?
The actual rail power won't be massively different between a 99 on diesel and a 66 and, what difference there is will present no issues in the real world performance, I'm willing to bet.
Where on diesel is there likely to be the extra power required and how much difference will this make?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Aug 2025 ==

My understanding is that a 99 can deliver 1600kW at the rail, compared to 1800kW for a 66. That doesn't seem to be all that much difference, or have I misunderstood something here?

The big question also is over what speed range is this delivered? I wouldn't be surprised if the 99 has a greater range of speed at which maximum rail power can be delivered. This was one factor as to why 50s were consistently better performers than 47 despite only a modest increase in installed power.

 

[hwl]

Well a 93 pulled 2000t over Shap at 30mph, so pretty good going.

That was with aggregate wagons, the aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance is comparatively higher for intermodal wagons for the same tonnage but you persistently want to seem to ignore it and focus just on tonnage. Timings need it to be average at least 55-60mph.
IAt some point when I get the time I do some graphics up for Shap showing what mix of the gradient / rolling / aerodynamic resistances are across the speed range.

4000kW on AC should be enough for an intermodal on the WCML.

That isn't want the assumptions for the current timings are though (they are higher...). Again you are over focusing on the gradient element in you thinking.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Aug 2025 ==

From Felixstowe I can quite happily keep time using notch 7 ( for a 66 thats 2,390 hp (Yes figures taken from data meter on EMDEC).
I believe the 99 is 2.400 hp on diesel.

Those are two different measurements.
a) The EMDEC measures electrical output from the traction alternator post rectification, this is in line with AAR practice in the US as this is the defined measurement point for measuring kW for the US EPA g/kWh emission metrics. Auxiliary loads (both mechanical e.g. compressor and electrical e.g. cooling fans et al.) fall outside this number.
b) The QSK50 number is gross shaft horsepower so alternator losses and auxiliary loads (cooling fans, compressor and everything else) need to be subtracted to compare with the EMD numbers in a). Stadler / GBRf / Cummins have busily been promoting the 2400hp/1800kW number as it is the biggest possible and sound better.

Hence 99 performance is equivalent to "Notch 6.5" in practice.

 

[Nym]

That was with aggregate wagons, the aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance is comparatively higher for intermodal wagons for the same tonnage but you persistently want to seem to ignore it and focus just on tonnage. Timings need it to be average at least 55-60mph.
IAt some point when I get the time I do some graphics up for Shap showing what mix of the gradient / rolling / aerodynamic resistances are across the speed range.

That isn't want the assumptions for the current timings are though (they are higher...). Again you are over focusing on the gradient element in you thinking.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Aug 2025 ==


Those are two different measurements.
a) The EMDEC measures electrical output from the traction alternator post rectification, this is in line with AAR practice in the US as this is the defined measurement point for measuring kW for the US EPA g/kWh emission metrics. Auxiliary loads (both mechanical e.g. compressor and electrical e.g. cooling fans et al.) fall outside this number.
b) The QSK50 number is gross shaft horsepower so alternator losses and auxiliary loads (cooling fans, compressor and everything else) need to be subtracted to compare with the EMD numbers in a). Stadler / GBRf / Cummins have busily been promoting the 2400hp/1800kW number as it is the biggest possible and sound better.

Hence 99 performance is equivalent to "Notch 6.5" in practice.

Does your "Notch 6.5" consider the more efficient manner in which the power is put down onto the rails by the much more advanced traction control system?

Given even when new, the 66 was not even as advanced as the contemporary Brush Traction equipment being commissioned by BR?

 

[hwl]

Does your "Notch 6.5" consider the more efficient manner in which the power is put down onto the rails by the much more advanced traction control system?

Given even when new, the 66 was not even as advanced as the contemporary Brush Traction equipment being commissioned by BR?

Yes

 

[Richard Scott]

That was with aggregate wagons, the aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance is comparatively higher for intermodal wagons for the same tonnage but you persistently want to seem to ignore it and focus just on tonnage. Timings need it to be average at least 55-60mph.
IAt some point when I get the time I do some graphics up for Shap showing what mix of the gradient / rolling / aerodynamic resistances are across the speed range.

That isn't want the assumptions for the current timings are though (they are higher...). Again you are over focusing on the gradient element in you thinking.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Aug 2025 ==


Those are two different measurements.
a) The EMDEC measures electrical output from the traction alternator post rectification, this is in line with AAR practice in the US as this is the defined measurement point for measuring kW for the US EPA g/kWh emission metrics. Auxiliary loads (both mechanical e.g. compressor and electrical e.g. cooling fans et al.) fall outside this number.
b) The QSK50 number is gross shaft horsepower so alternator losses and auxiliary loads (cooling fans, compressor and everything else) need to be subtracted to compare with the EMD numbers in a). Stadler / GBRf / Cummins have busily been promoting the 2400hp/1800kW number as it is the biggest possible and sound better.

Hence 99 performance is equivalent to "Notch 6.5" in practice.

But you're not allowing for higher efficiency of AC system, I know an alternator is roughly 90% efficient but AC motors will be higher efficiency than DC, and more controllable leading to better adhesion and improved acceleration. I expect the difference is not as wide as you believe.

 

[Nottingham59]

That was with aggregate wagons, the aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance is comparatively higher for intermodal wagons for the same tonnage but you persistently want to seem to ignore it and focus just on tonnage.

I've only done the calculations for performance over Shap for the 93 tests, which were around 30mph. At that speed, wind resistance and rolling resistance are small compared to the power needed to lift 1800t against gravity.

Timings need it to be average at least 55-60mph.

Sure. Wind resistance power increased as the cube of the speed, so will become very important very quickly. But I've not been able to find data on the wind resistance of intermodals, with all those gaps between slab-fronted containers. If you (or anyone) can tell me what is the balancing speed of, say, a 66 on full power on the flat with a full-length 775m intermodal 1800t trailing load, then I can work it out.

That isn't want the assumptions for the current timings are though (they are higher...). Again you are over focusing on the gradient element in you thinking.

What are the assumptions on traction for the current intermodal timings on the WCML? A single-headed 90 is 3700kW, an 88 is 4000kW. Around the same as a 93 on AC and much less than a 99. I don't see how current timings can be based on a more power than a 93.

IAt some point when I get the time I do some graphics up for Shap showing what mix of the gradient / rolling / aerodynamic resistances are across the speed range.

Please do. My calculations, for what they are worth, are on the 93 thread here:

Class 93 Tri-mode Loco

93009 is now in the Uk. So expect it at Worksop this week.

www.railforums.co.uk

At 39mph, I reckoned that that tractive effort for an 1800t for aggregate load against gravity was 242kN, rolling resistance was 18.5kN, and aerodynamic resistance was 6kN. What would be your figures for an intermodal up Shap?

 

[Unobrow]

So was I - GBRf aren't going to loan a 99 to FL are they! Hence a 93 from ROG is the only option...
A 93 will struggle with long container services on the northern WCML due to the large aerodynamic drag /rolling resistance and sustained steep gradients (not tested so far...) but Gateway - Crewe will be fine.

I wasn’t expecting, nor suggested GBRf would loan FL a 99. However once their capabilities are known from current testing compared to a 93, and if their difference was worth the (assumed) extra price, then they could make a more informed decision.

 

[Wyrleybart]

I wasn’t expecting, nor suggested GBRf would loan FL a 99. However once their capabilities are known from current testing compared to a 93, and if their difference was worth the (assumed) extra price, then they could make a more informed decision.

You never know, Stadler might build an extra 99 as a development unit for the UK marketplace and base it at the Leicester Stadler depot. Other modes of transport describe them as demonstrators, and Adtranz even built some 170s - was it 170397-170399 ?

Thinking about it - what was the history of 70099 which IIRC was built in Turkey ?

 

[Suraggu]

Yes - here regarding 93s and Freightliner:

Establishing a secure connection ...

More recently I have heard from a source (not public) that they are planned to be trialled out of Gateway and that Felixstowe is going to be difficult for the 93s.


I suspect all container trains hauled by 99s out of Felixstowe will have to run via London. Don’t know for sure, but it seems a bit much to use a Class 37 equivalent on 775m intermodals.

You can’t use locomotives on revenue earning freight without type approval. The 93’s are still awaiting for type approval or even an interim NRSC to allow them to be used on revenue earning flows.

So without that from the regulator/NR they can only be used on light engine/test movements. And things have changed regarding approval for the network since the class 88 was introduced unfortunately.

 

[furnessvale]

Sure. Wind resistance power increased as the cube of the speed, so will become very important very quickly. But I've not been able to find data on the wind resistance of intermodals, with all those gaps between slab-fronted containers. If you (or anyone) can tell me what is the balancing speed of, say, a 66 on full power on the flat with a full-length 775m intermodal 1800t trailing load, then I can work it out.

Talking about gaps between slab fronted containers, is any consideration made for the fact that a train fully loaded to 1800t will have considerably less gaps and therefore less wind resistance, than a 775m train part loaded, presenting those gaps but weighing less.

 

[ac6000cw]

Talking about gaps between slab fronted containers, is any consideration made for the fact that a train fully loaded to 1800t will have considerably less gaps and therefore less wind resistance, than a 775m train part loaded, presenting those gaps but weighing less.

Watching the intermodals rolling through Ely, they tend to be either fully (or almost fully) loaded or partially loaded but with the containers grouped in blocks e.g. a block at the front and/or rear of a train then the rest of it empty. Maybe they do this to reduce the aerodynamic drag, compared to having a more 'distributed' container loading pattern? Or maybe it just happens that way to reduce the amount of terminal crane movement needed?

 

[cj_1985]

May depend on container size and what the intermodal wagons can carry... I've seen a few where they have had a mix of wagon types, and can only accommodate the larger containers (I dont mean length) on lower platform wagons.

 

[Mollman]

Watching the intermodals rolling through Ely, they tend to be either fully (or almost fully) loaded or partially loaded but with the containers grouped in blocks e.g. a block at the front and/or rear of a train then the rest of it empty. Maybe they do this to reduce the aerodynamic drag, compared to having a more 'distributed' container loading pattern? Or maybe it just happens that way to reduce the amount of terminal crane movement needed?

I think there is also something to do with weight distribution helping with breaking

 

[zwk500]

I think there is also something to do with weight distribution helping with breaking

And possibly also to do with dampening vertical movement to reduce risk of derailment?

 

[ac6000cw]

Just watched an eastbound DB intermodal (4L32) pass through Ely with a grand total of 8 containers on it, all grouped together at the tail end of a 750m+ long train...

One thing that is noticeable nowadays is the use of a lot of bar-coupled sets of container flats (usually doubles and triples), which minimises the dead space between platforms/containers within the set. The FWA 'Ecofret/Ecofret2' wagon sets of 3 x 40 foot flats seem a particularly good example of it, as 40 foot containers are the dominant traffic. As well as maximising the load space versus train length, I assume the narrow gaps between containers helps minimise the aerodynamic drag.

 

[Bald Rick]

Just watched an eastbound DB intermodal (4L32) pass through Ely with a grand total of 8 containers on it, all grouped together at the tail end of a 750m+ long train...

Thats where they should be…

 

[j37401]

Just watched an eastbound DB intermodal (4L32) pass through Ely with a grand total of 8 containers on it, all grouped together at the tail end of a 750m+ long train...

One thing that is noticeable nowadays is the use of a lot of bar-coupled sets of container flats (usually doubles and triples), which minimises the dead space between platforms/containers within the set. The FWA 'Ecofret/Ecofret2' wagon sets of 3 x 40 foot flats seem a particularly good example of it, as 40 foot containers are the dominant traffic. As well as maximising the load space versus train length, I assume the narrow gaps between containers helps minimise the aerodynamic drag.

There are lots of ideal ways to load intermodal trains as you and others have mentioned but often the terminal layout / time constraints / loading equipment failure / containers not on site / other outside factors determine how they get loaded with many trains departing in a ‘non ideal’ formation.
For insight, 4L32 today with only the load at the rear of the train. As a side note it makes it slower to pull away but easier to brake. So drivers tell me. The reason the load was at the rear was that the train (4M90) arrived at TP 2 hours late and despite leaving TP 2 hours late as 4L32, the train was only in the hands of the terminal operators for an hour before it was moved for the next train (4M83) and they have more time with that portion of the train when it arrived. The train being split into 2 halves upon arrival. Under normal loading times the train would have been fully loaded in every position with a good proportion being empties going back to port. Again, not ideal having all of the weight at the rear but sometimes that is just how it works out.

 

[ac6000cw]

Thats where they should be…

Do you mean the train should (ideally) have the eight containers loaded at the rear from a train handling/performance point-of-view? If so, I'm just curious about the reasons - versus them being e.g. loaded at the front or in the middle?

There are lots of ideal ways to load intermodal trains as you and others have mentioned but often the terminal layout / time constraints / loading equipment failure / containers not on site / other outside factors determine how they get loaded with many trains departing in a ‘non ideal’ formation.
For insight, 4L32 today with only the load at the rear of the train. As a side note it makes it slower to pull away but easier to brake. So drivers tell me. The reason the load was at the rear was that the train (4M90) arrived at TP 2 hours late and despite leaving TP 2 hours late as 4L32, the train was only in the hands of the terminal operators for an hour before it was moved for the next train (4M83) and they have more time with that portion of the train when it arrived. The train being split into 2 halves upon arrival. Under normal loading times the train would have been fully loaded in every position with a good proportion being empties going back to port. Again, not ideal having all of the weight at the rear but sometimes that is just how it works out.

Thanks for the reply - I know 'stuff happens' sometimes (4L32 was over 2 hours late when I saw it), and that trains have to run even if they are empty to make the equipment diagram work for subsequent trains.

 

[Nottingham59]

At some point when I get the time I do some graphics up for Shap showing what mix of the gradient / rolling / aerodynamic resistances are across the speed range.

I think Rail Engineer might have done some of that for you.


[Image shows speed profiles of classes 66, 70, 88, 99 and 2x90 hauling a 1350t intermodal up Shap]

The data shows a class 66 (1850kW at the rail) hauling a 1350t intermodal at 72mph on the level at Oxenholme, so the wind resistance at that speed must be less than 1850kW. That's less than a third of the power of the 6000kW Class 99 on AC.

From: https://www.railengineer.co.uk/re-imagining-and-electrifying-rail-freight/

 

[Rail Quest]

I think Rail Engineer might have done some of that for you.

View attachment 187747
[Image shows speed profiles of classes 66, 70, 88, 99 and 2x90 hauling a 1350t intermodal up Shap]

The data shows a class 66 (1850kW at the rail) hauling a 1350t intermodal at 72mph on the level at Oxenholme, so the wind resistance at that speed must be less than 1850kW. That's less than a third of the power of the 6000kW Class 99 on AC.

From: https://www.railengineer.co.uk/re-imagining-and-electrifying-rail-freight/

This is a fantastic diagram! Love this sort of thing.

I'm assuming it should be possible to use the data behind this to calculate the time taken to get from Oxenholme to Penrith (to encounter for the time taken for the slower locos to accelerate back up to 75mph). Comparing the time saved by the 99s should presumably help demonstrate patching benefits.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

I'm assuming it should be possible to use the data behind this to calculate the time taken to get from Oxenholme to Penrith (to encounter for the time taken for the slower locos to accelerate back up to 75mph). Comparing the time saved by the 99s should presumably help demonstrate patching benefits.

The area of the graph is the time, so it should certianly be possible to calculate the time (although for to Penrith we'd need more data for the downwards acceleration).

 

[hwl]

This is a fantastic diagram! Love this sort of thing.

I'm assuming it should be possible to use the data behind this to calculate the time taken to get from Oxenholme to Penrith (to encounter for the time taken for the slower locos to accelerate back up to 75mph). Comparing the time saved by the 99s should presumably help demonstrate patching benefits.

Try looking in the RSSB T1301 report which is where David took that chart from (and relabelled crudely.)

Grey shading is the elevation profile.

 

[absolutelymilk]

The area of the graph is the time, so it should certianly be possible to calculate the time (although for to Penrith we'd need more data for the downwards acceleration).

The area under a velocity-distance graph isn't time (if you increase velocity then time should go up not down!) - you could calculate the time using the suvat equations and turning the curves into straight lines though!

 

[hwl]

I think Rail Engineer might have done some of that for you.

View attachment 187747
[Image shows speed profiles of classes 66, 70, 88, 99 and 2x90 hauling a 1350t intermodal up Shap]

If you look a the original chart in the T1301 report it is 1235tonne trailing, David's relabelling is still 1235tonnes not 1350t. If repeated at 1600t or 1800t trailing the 66 speed drops to <15mph at the slowest.

Freight train weight for max load and SRT calculations are both trailing load i.e. excluding locomotives.