Class 93 Tri-mode Loco

[Nottingham59]

Will they be powerful enough to haul a fully laden container train?

Yes. easily! Almost twice as much on electric as a 66 at the rail, and enough on diesel + battery to get up to Linespeed on the Gateway branch as quick as a 66. Probably wouldn’t lose much time compared to a 66 on the Felixstowe line or Nuneaton - Hams Hall / Lawley St.

A class 93 should be able to haul an 1500T intermodal up a 1% gradient, like Shap or Beattock, at around 60mph, according to the graph here: https://www.railengineer.co.uk/class-93-tri-mode-locos-on-order/ . That compares to 30mph with a Class 66.

The interesting question for the future is whether the timetabling process will continue to allow diesel-only freight paths on the northern WCML during the day, when electric and bimode locomotives would consume many fewer passenger paths. And that's up to NR and ORR, I guess.

 

[furnessvale]

A class 93 should be able to haul an 1500T intermodal up a 1% gradient, like Shap or Beattock, at around 60mph, according to the graph here: https://www.railengineer.co.uk/class-93-tri-mode-locos-on-order/ . That compares to 30mph with a Class 66.

The interesting question for the future is whether the timetabling process will continue to allow diesel-only freight paths on the northern WCML during the day, when electric and bimode locomotives would consume many fewer passenger paths. And that's up to NR and ORR, I guess.

But both Shap and Beattock are more like 1.25%. I am not sure how badly that will affect your calculations.

 

[D365]

Either some grand plan or stock moves!

For what it’s worth, I seem to recall being told that there are no [immediate] plans to deploy the Class 93s on stock movements.

 

[zwk500]

For what it’s worth, I seem to recall being told that there are no [immediate] plans to deploy the Class 93s on stock movements.

I do find it a little remarkable that people think a business would be spending millions of pounds a pop on an asset without a very clear idea of what work they were planned to do for more than the next few years.

 

[Bald Rick]

The interesting question for the future is whether the timetabling process will continue to allow diesel-only freight paths on the northern WCML during the day

The Timetabling process doesn’t have the facility to ‘ban’ certain types of path or traction.

And that's up to NR and ORR, I guess.

it is up to the decision criteria laid out in the Network Code, Part D.

 

[Nottingham59]

But both Shap and Beattock are more like 1.25%. I am not sure how badly that will affect your calculations.

A 1500T trailing load will require 187.5kN to keep it moving up a 1.25% gradient, so the figures become 50mph and 25mph, according to the graph. The diesel will still take twice as long to get up the hill.

(But note the class 93 with a maximum TE of 290kN will be much more vulnerable to wheelslip in conditions of low adhesion, compared to a 66 at 410kN)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Jun 2023 ==

The Timetabling process doesn’t have the facility to ‘ban’ certain types of path or traction.

I know. Maybe it should. The "process" does has the facility to impose scarcity charges on congested infrastructure, but chooses not to do so.

4.4.1 Schedule 3 of the Regulations permits a scarcity charge to be levied for the use of congested infrastructure, where this charge has been set out in the applicable Network Statement. 4.4.2 Network Rail does not levy such a charge. Implementation of a congested infrastructure (scarcity) charge may or may not be considered for Control Period 7 through ORR’s review of access charges for the 2023 Periodic Review. - From "Management of Congested Infrastructure - Network Rail’s Code of Practice"

An appropriate scarcity charge would work just as well.

it is up to the decision criteria laid out in the Network Code, Part D.

Network codes can be changed. Admittedly it would be politically difficult to do so when FoCs depend on Class 66 traction. But when class 93 and (even more so) the Class 99 come into service, then it will become extremely difficult to justify allowing diesel traction on the WCML north of Crewe. Or anywhere where passenger timetabling is restricted by slow freight paths under the wires.

 

[Bald Rick]

Network codes can be changed.

Not very easily, it turns out.

 

[brad465]

But both Shap and Beattock are more like 1.25%. I am not sure how badly that will affect your calculations.

If there's a dodgy wagon onboard and the train is too long for all the passing loops, then the calculation for the freight train and every other service behind it goes up by several hours

 

[Richard Scott]

A 1500T trailing load will require 187.5kN to keep it moving up a 1.25% gradient, so the figures become 50mph and 25mph, according to the graph. The diesel will still take twice as long to get up the hill.

(But note the class 93 with a maximum TE of 290kN will be much more vulnerable to wheelslip in conditions of low adhesion, compared to a 66 at 410kN)

Not necessarily as bad as it looks, 93 with ac drive will have more control. I know 66 has more adhesive weight so ultimately may be less prone to wheelslip causing a significant loss of speed.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

A picture of it from Twitter here: https://twitter.com/Clinnick1/status/1673950358475792387?t=Edh3XYVq1I6WJwILVXa9HQ&s=19

Wow what a beautiful loco

 

[Cowley]

For all your “What could the 93s be used for?” needs. Please use this thread:

Potential utilisation of ROG Class 93s?

mods note - split from this thread What is the plan for whatever 93s displace? It sounds like 66s are being displaced from key services, when I initially thought it would be 37s. Is the plan to move 93s onto some 66 services, then the 66s move to take over 37s, if there's gauge clearance?

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[InkyScrolls]

A picture of it from Twitter here: https://twitter.com/Clinnick1/status/1673950358475792387?t=Edh3XYVq1I6WJwILVXa9HQ&s=19

Why this modern obsession with making everything look angry?

 

[Otis]

Why this modern obsession with making everything look angry?

Probably something to do with crossrail

 

[m79900]

Why this modern obsession with making everything look angry?

I wouldn't call it new. The HSTs and 91s look pretty aggressive.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Probably something to do with crossrail

Brilliant!

 

[Geoff DC]

Plus Cross Country and Greater Angrier

 

[50002Superb]

Was mentioned upthread it may be going by road.

Yeah that’s what I was assumed / was asking

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Wow what a beautiful loco

It looks great but for company promoting freight haulage surely it should have been hauled through the tunnel

 

[zwk500]

It looks great but for company promoting freight haulage surely it should have been hauled through the tunnel

Why? Would have cost an absolute fortune to move from Valencia to Dollands Moor by rail and you wouldn't even get a good photo as it'd be dead in tow with either a 92 or a diesel rescue loco on the front of it.

 

[Incogcyclist79]

FYI I eyeballed 93001 on Portbury Dock this evening from the path on the Avonmouth bridge adjacent to the M5.

As of 1900 it was sat on a trailer in what I think is the automotive terminal. It was located at about this position on what3words: villager.presume.fictional.

 

[The_Train]

There are photo's of it actually on the rails at Portbury (apparently taken yesterday). Presumably as @Incogcyclist79 eyeballed it on a trailer later in the day, this was to facilitate a trailer swap for it's onward transport

 

[47476NightMail]

There are photo's of it actually on the rails at Portbury (apparently taken yesterday). Presumably as @Incogcyclist79 eyeballed it on a trailer later in the day, this was to facilitate a trailer swap for it's onward transport

It was on the rails at the Bristol Cruise Terminal part of the Portbury site at 07:45 this morning (visible from the M5 Avonmouth Bridge, albeit it's a long way away). By 10:00, a number of car transporters were largely blocking any view (other than the roof).

https://www.flickr.com/photos/195022901@N06/53009339487

 

[Incogcyclist79]

It was on the rails at the Bristol Cruise Terminal part of the Portbury site at 07:45 this morning (visible from the M5 Avonmouth Bridge, albeit it's a long way away). By 10:00, a number of car transporters were largely blocking any view (other than the roof).

Ah, in that case I may have been mistaken that it was on a trailer. I thought it was on the hard standing in front of the Cruise Terminal shed when I looked through my binoculars but it seems like, as you say, it was actually on the tracks (in mitigation it was getting dark and along way away!)

 

[12LDA28C]

It looks great but for company promoting freight haulage surely it should have been hauled through the tunnel

93s are gauge cleared for the tunnel, are they?

 

[zwk500]

93s are gauge cleared for the tunnel, are they?

Tbf they'd easily fit within the physical limits, and need to be dead hauled anyway because they lack TVM

 

[The_Train]

It was on the rails at the Bristol Cruise Terminal part of the Portbury site at 07:45 this morning (visible from the M5 Avonmouth Bridge, albeit it's a long way away). By 10:00, a number of car transporters were largely blocking any view (other than the roof).

Could it be being readied for a rail based drag or is it more likely to be for re-loading onto another trailer do we think?

 

[12LDA28C]

Tbf they'd easily fit within the physical limits, and need to be dead hauled anyway because they lack TVM

Indeed, but presumably would still need to be specifically cleared for the route, like anything else?

 

[zwk500]

Indeed, but presumably would still need to be specifically cleared for the route, like anything else?

Would need certification from the Spanish and French as well as Channel Tunnel authorities, but in theory it'd be no different to any other dead loco move and largely a paperwork exercise (fuel tanks could be empty, electrics isolated, etc). Of course the cost of arranging for somebody to drag it that far would preclude any questions about clearance.

 

[47476NightMail]

Could it be being readied for a rail based drag or is it more likely to be for re-loading onto another trailer do we think?

Everything previously reported would suggest that it'll be loaded to a new trailer. An Allelys truck crossed the Avonmouth Bridge towards Portbury whilst I was on it this morning but I suspect (but can't be 100% sure) that was in conjunction with the move of a 197 bodyshell to Llanwern - that left Portbury just before 10:00.

 

[Energy]

Would need certification from the Spanish and French as well as Channel Tunnel authorities, but in theory it'd be no different to any other dead loco move and largely a paperwork exercise (fuel tanks could be empty, electrics isolated, etc). Of course the cost of arranging for somebody to drag it that far would preclude any questions about clearance.

Channel tunnels paths aren't particularly cheap, for a single rail vehicle road transport would be much cheaper. Stadler's other moves through the tunnel have generally been a couple of units.