GBRf Class 99 - 30 locomotives now ordered

[Tyrion]

Rough current estimate. These don't include the likes of Daventry or Tees and don't include stuff that is on the horizon.

15xFelixstowe
4L29/4M29 (Birch)
4L23/4M23 (Hams)
4L21/4E21 (Donny Rail Port)
4L20/4E20 (Masborough)
4L43/4E43 (iPort)
4L02/4M02 (Hams)
4L03/4E03 (Tinsley)
4L28/4E28 (iPort)
4L13/4E13 (Hams)
4L11/4E11 (Masborough)
4L07/4M07 (Birch)
4L04/4M04 (Hams)
4L14/4E14 (iPort)
4L18/4M18 (Trafford)
4L53/4E53 (Tinsley)

4xGateway
4L47/4M47 (Hams)
4L40/4M40 (East Mids Gateway)
4L67/4M69 (Birch)
4L98/4E97 (Masborough)

3xSouthampton
4O34/4E34 (iport)
4O19/4M19 (East Mids Gateway)
4O46/4M46 (Trafford)
Plus MOD traffic

Do you envisage GB getting more IM traffic to Scotland?
New Mossend Yard starting to take shape, I would have thought they would be in amongst the opportunities that presents.

 

[train_lover]

It's certainly expanded over the years somewhat! Forgot 4L04/4M04 and 4L14/4E14, now added.

You've got 4D62 and F62 Seaforth to EMG

 

[GB]

You've got 4D62 and F62 Seaforth to EMG

thanks, now added

Do you envisage GB getting more IM traffic to Scotland?
New Mossend Yard starting to take shape, I would have thought they would be in amongst the opportunities that presents.

In all honesty I am not too familiar with stuff up that way.

 

[train_lover]

Do you envisage GB getting more IM traffic to Scotland?
New Mossend Yard starting to take shape, I would have thought they would be in amongst the opportunities that presents.

Given the growth in the intermodal sector particularly within GB I'd imagine they'd like to. It ultimately comes down to who the ports/ terminals want to work with.

thanks, now added


In all honesty I am not too familiar with stuff up that way.

How far north do you go, Landor Street?

 

[Bertie the bus]

Rough current estimate. These don't include the likes of Daventry or Tees and don't include stuff that is on the horizon.

15xFelixstowe
4L29/4M29 (Birch)
4L23/4M23 (Hams)
4L21/4E21 (Donny Rail Port)
4L20/4E20 (Masborough)
4L43/4E43 (iPort)
4L02/4M02 (Hams)
4L03/4E03 (Tinsley)
4L28/4E28 (iPort)
4L13/4E13 (Hams)
4L11/4E11 (Masborough)
4L07/4M07 (Birch)
4L04/4M04 (Hams)
4L14/4E14 (iPort)
4L18/4M18 (Trafford)
4L53/4E53 (Tinsley)

4xGateway
4L47/4M47 (Hams)
4L40/4M40 (East Mids Gateway)
4L67/4M69 (Birch)
4L98/4E97 (Masborough)

3xSouthampton
4O34/4E34 (iport)
4O19/4M19 (East Mids Gateway)
4O46/4M46 (Trafford)
Plus MOD traffic

1x Seaforth
4D62/4F62 (East Mids Gateway)

More than I thought but looking at the schedules, assuming they retain the current paths, most of the Felixstowe flows wouldn't benefit from a bi-mode loco. The only overhead wires they see are a small section around Peterborough and Stowmarket - Ipswich.

 

[GB]

More than I thought but looking at the schedules, assuming they retain the current paths, most of the Felixstowe flows wouldn't benefit from a bi-mode loco. The only overhead wires they see are a small section around Peterborough and Stowmarket - Ipswich.

Indeed, but a lot of them have alternative paths via GEML/WCML/ECML and a lot can change in 3 and a half years. The size of the fuel tank will also be a factor.

 

[Bald Rick]

Real Time trains says its timed for a maximum speed of 75mph

Realtime Trains | 1C50 2350 London Paddington to Penzance | 01/05/2022

Real-time train running information for 1C50 2350 departure from London Paddington to Penzance on 01/05/2022. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

So these new locos could be suitable if they are fitted with Electric Train Supply.

And dfferent couplers. Which they won’t be.

 

[D365]

Why is there so much interest in the possibility of using Class 99s on sleeper work?

If the Class 57s and/or 92s were to be replaced, something like a Class 93 derivative would be far more suitable.

 

[ExRes]

Why is there so much interest in the possibility of using Class 99s on sleeper work?

If the Class 57s and/or 92s were to be replaced, something like a Class 93 derivative would be far more suitable.

Please stop being sensible, it's up to GBRf management to realise that their specifications for a freight loco are completely wrong and that they should fall into line immediately

 

[hwl]

Why is there so much interest in the possibility of using Class 99s on sleeper work?

If the Class 57s and/or 92s were to be replaced, something like a Class 93 derivative would be far more suitable.

Except to get the size of diesel engine required to meet the performance specification "off the wires" along with potential for a decent battery capacity you need the length and axle loading of a 6 axle platform (e.g. RA7).

Hence I'd expect a Stadler response to the First group EOI to be based on the 93 but:
1) regeared for 100/110mph max
2) potentially just 4 traction motors (will meet performance requirements) which reduces cost /weight (mirroring some recent US loco specs for container traffic e.g. GE/Wabtec and EMD supplying A1A-A1A rather than Co-Co)
3) Dellner couplings and suitable ETS

Please stop being sensible, it's up to GBRf management to realise that their specifications for a freight loco are completely wrong and that they should fall into line immediately

What is wrong with the spec of the 99 for freight?

 

[43096]

3) Dellner couplings and suitable ETS

The TPE and Night Riviera stock doesn’t have Dellners.

 

[ExRes]

What is wrong with the spec of the 99 for freight?

Absolutely nothing, unless you happen to be an online 'expert' who wants to use them for everything else

 

[train_lover]

Why is there so much interest in the possibility of using Class 99s on sleeper work?

If the Class 57s and/or 92s were to be replaced, something like a Class 93 derivative would be far more suitable.

Because the 93 and 99 are two totally different beasts. The 99 is essentially a class 66 with the addition of a pantograph. The class 93 isn't. The 99 has been purchased with the view it'll do everything that a class 66 currently does. The 93 was ordered for different reasons as ROG don't have heavy trains.

People keep comparing the two but they are completely different.

 

[D365]

Because the 93 and 99 are two totally different beasts. The 99 is essentially a class 66 with the addition of a pantograph. The class 93 isn't. The 99 has been purchased with the view it'll do everything that a class 66 currently does. The 93 was ordered for different reasons as ROG don't have heavy trains.

People keep comparing the two but they are completely different.

That's exactly my point. The Class 99 is wholly unsuitable.

I'll be interested to see where ROG find work for x30 Cl93, but that's a question for the dedicated thread.

 

[Wyrleybart]

Except to get the size of diesel engine required to meet the performance specification "off the wires" along with potential for a decent battery capacity you need the length and axle loading of a 6 axle platform (e.g. RA7).

Hence I'd expect a Stadler response to the First group EOI to be based on the 93 but:
1) regeared for 100/110mph max
2) potentially just 4 traction motors (will meet performance requirements) which reduces cost /weight (mirroring some recent US loco specs for container traffic e.g. GE/Wabtec and EMD supplying A1A-A1A rather than Co-Co)
3) Dellner couplings and suitable ETS

Yes. I was reading a couple of years ago about the American design. From what I recall the locos didn't need all six axles to be motored so were designed as A1A A1As. But bizarrely though they were trialling the design of making the centre unpowered axle liftable for increased traction when needed. I sense the lift wasn't going to be very much at all, just to place more adhesion on the powered axles when necessary. Did that ever happen ?

That's exactly my point. The Class 99 is wholly unsuitable.

I'll be interested to see where ROG find work for x30 Cl93, but that's a question for the dedicated thread.

I don't think the 99 can be perceived to be a 66 with a pantograph. The 66 is more or less a 1970s basic design (class 59) with updated 1990s bits installed, but is still a heavy and rugged diesel loco with DC traction motors rated at 3300hp. The EMD V12 710 engine in the 66 is apparently very tough.

The class 99 is not really in the same league as the class 66 from a diesel point of view maybe with the AC drive proving more maintenance free and much stronger than the DC motored 66 but......... Whatever power unit is going in it might not be the tough guy the EMD is. From what I have seen of class 68 and class 70 so far, I am not convinced you can "drive them into the ground" like the 66s have been. Whether the AC drive can compensate for the lesser installed horsepower, will be interesting to discover.

As for ROGs class 93s - aren't they having the ten with twenty options ?

 

[ac6000cw]

I was reading a couple of years ago about the American design. From what I recall the locos didn't need all six axles to be motored so were designed as A1A A1As. But bizarrely though they were trialling the design of making the centre unpowered axle liftable for increased traction when needed. I sense the lift wasn't going to be very much at all, just to place more adhesion on the powered axles when necessary. Did that ever happen ?

AFAIK - it's been a standard feature of the GE/Wabtec ES44C4 & ET44C4 since their introduction in 2009. The amount of inner axle lift/weight transfer to the powered axles is variable, controlled by the traction control system via pneumatic cylinders. Basically the idea of the A1A-A1A version was to produce an AC-drive loco with similar performance and price to the Co-Co DC-drive version of the ES44, primarily intended for hauling intermodal traffic. As BNSF now has a fleet of over 1500 of them I think you can say they've been a successful design.

A video (not mine) of the centre axle being intentionally lifted on an ES44C4 (at around the 0:50 point) - a quote from the description on YouTube: "The locomotive will generate 104,000 lbs. of continuous tractive effort with the center axle down but when lifted, it can generate 144,000 lbs. of tractive effort" (460 kN vs. 640 kN).

 

[furnessvale]

AFAIK - it's been a standard feature of the GE/Wabtec ES44C4 & ET44C4 since their introduction in 2009. The amount of inner axle lift/weight transfer to the powered axles is variable, controlled by the traction control system via pneumatic cylinders. Basically the idea of the A1A-A1A version was to produce an AC-drive loco with similar performance and price to the Co-Co DC-drive version of the ES44, primarily intended for hauling intermodal traffic. As BNSF now has a fleet of over 1500 of them I think you can say they've been a successful design.

A video (not mine) of the centre axle being intentionally lifted on an ES44C4 (at around the 0:50 point) - a quote from the description on YouTube: "The locomotive will generate 104,000 lbs. of continuous tractive effort with the center axle down but when lifted, it can generate 144,000 lbs. of tractive effort" (460 kN vs. 640 kN).

Interesting, but do these loco designers not understand what increased axle loading on the four remaining axles does to the track? (Of course they do, as do the perway engineers. Wouldnt it be better all round to fit SIX smaller motors instead of four large ones and maintain a consistent lighter axle load?)

 

[43096]

Interesting, but do these loco designers not understand what increased axle loading on the four remaining axles does to the track? (Of course they do, as do the perway engineers. Wouldnt it be better all round to fit SIX smaller motors instead of four large ones and maintain a consistent lighter axle load?)

Part of the reason for doing it is cost to make an AC motor A1A-A1A similar to a DC motor Co-Co. The cost is not so much the motor itself but the converters and power electronics that control them. The Wabtec (GE as was) design uses a converter per axle (rather than one per bogie) so there is a substantial cost reduction from going from six motors to four.

 

[ac6000cw]

Interesting, but do these loco designers not understand what increased axle loading on the four remaining axles does to the track? (Of course they do, as do the perway engineers. Wouldnt it be better all round to fit SIX smaller motors instead of four large ones and maintain a consistent lighter axle load?)

That costs more - two more motors and two more traction inverters (plus their maintenance) per loco, and intermodal generally doesn't need the very high tractive effort capability that is the forte of 6-motor AC-drive locos in heavy-haul service.

BNSF has basically decided that four AC-powered axles per loco is sufficient most of the time for intermodal, and AFAIK the ES44C4 loco development was effectively a joint GE & BNSF Railway project, so BNSF would have been very well aware of the implications for the track and structures. It's all about minimising the overall cost of moving the freight, so they are trading off lower loco costs against higher track costs (in a few areas). Same reason that locos generally have got larger, heavier and more powerful since the dawn of railways.

This is from an old GE 'datasheet' for the ES44C4 (my bold):

One of the ES44C4 technology breakthroughs is a unique new
feature, the Dynamic Weight Management System. This system
automatically improves tractive effort on heavy trains for
optimum performance at start up, on inclines and for adverse rail
conditions caused by inclement weather or other environmental
conditions.

The Dynamic Weight Management System continuously monitors
traction performance. Whenever additional adhesion is required,
the system automatically transfers some of the weight from an
idler axle to the AC-powered axles without operator assistance.
Four air cylinders, featuring the same proven technology already
used for the Evolution Series Locomotives’ air brakes, control the
weight distribution operation for each idler axle. Each idler axle is
controlled independently to provide adhesion as needed.

This system operates only at lower end speeds and is therefore
projected to redistribute axle weight less than 5% of the total
operating time. The system is not required for operation during
dynamic or friction braking.

 

[train_lover]

Yes. I was reading a couple of years ago about the American design. From what I recall the locos didn't need all six axles to be motored so were designed as A1A A1As. But bizarrely though they were trialling the design of making the centre unpowered axle liftable for increased traction when needed. I sense the lift wasn't going to be very much at all, just to place more adhesion on the powered axles when necessary. Did that ever happen ?


I don't think the 99 can be perceived to be a 66 with a pantograph. The 66 is more or less a 1970s basic design (class 59) with updated 1990s bits installed, but is still a heavy and rugged diesel loco with DC traction motors rated at 3300hp. The EMD V12 710 engine in the 66 is apparently very tough.

The class 99 is not really in the same league as the class 66 from a diesel point of view maybe with the AC drive proving more maintenance free and much stronger than the DC motored 66 but......... Whatever power unit is going in it might not be the tough guy the EMD is. From what I have seen of class 68 and class 70 so far, I am not convinced you can "drive them into the ground" like the 66s have been. Whether the AC drive can compensate for the lesser installed horsepower, will be interesting to discover.

As for ROGs class 93s - aren't they having the ten with twenty options ?

The class 99s are planned to do everything that the 66s currently do..marking the start of the end of the 66s. Class 66s kick out 3000hp with the 99s kicking out 2750hp on diesel. The key benefits to the 99 which make it better that the 66 is the pantograph and the way it puts power down onto the rail. It'll be far better at doing that than the 66s.

To be absolutely clear here, 66s are ace. I spend my life driving them on various different types of trains. They are unbelievable locos that as re extremely reliable. I for one will be gutted to see them go but with the green agenda companies need to plan for the future and that's exactly what GB have done with the 99s

 

[martin2345uk]

They did!

Haha, ok a few more nice new locos!

 

[Speed43125]

Haha, ok a few more nice new locos!

Sorry, what Freightliner locos are being alluded to here? 90s?

 

[martin2345uk]

I was assuming the 70s but could be wrong!

Anyway, those 99s huh...

 

[D365]

Sorry, what Freightliner locos are being alluded to here? 90s?

Class 70, presumably.

 

[Cowley]

I’m going to give a little nudge here to not stray too far off the Class 99 subject before it goes too far.

If anyone wants to discuss other locos we can start a new thread. Meanwhile here’s somewhere to discuss all your thoughts on driving class 66s…

Drivers' experience of Class 66 locomotives

To be absolutely clear here, 66s are ace. I spend my life driving them on various different types of trains. They are unbelievable locos that as re extremely reliable. Mods note - split from here. Really? In comparison to their BR predecessors, I've not heard enough positives about the 66s...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[DelW]

Yes. I was reading a couple of years ago about the American design. From what I recall the locos didn't need all six axles to be motored so were designed as A1A A1As. But bizarrely though they were trialling the design of making the centre unpowered axle liftable for increased traction when needed. I sense the lift wasn't going to be very much at all, just to place more adhesion on the powered axles when necessary. Did that ever happen ?

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.

 

[Speed43125]

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

I presumed you meant that?

 

[GB]

The class 99s are planned to do everything that the 66s currently do..marking the start of the end of the 66s. Class 66s kick out 3000hp with the 99s kicking out 2750hp on diesel. The key benefits to the 99 which make it better that the 66 is the pantograph and the way it puts power down onto the rail. It'll be far better at doing that than the 66s.

To be absolutely clear here, 66s are ace. I spend my life driving them on various different types of trains. They are unbelievable locos that as re extremely reliable. I for one will be gutted to see them go but with the green agenda companies need to plan for the future and that's exactly what GB have done with the 99s

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.

 

[DelW]

I presumed you meant that?

No, it's the axles nearest the fuel tank that are unpowered, so they are arranged p-p-u --- u-p-p (p=powered, u=unpowered).

 

[Speed43125]

No, it's the axles nearest the fuel tank that are unpowered, so they are arranged p-p-u --- u-p-p (p=powered, u=unpowered).

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