Class 93 Tri-mode Loco

[Nym]

Technically, no. Practically? It's hard to see any potential customer wanting MKIV compatibility and therefore justifying the cost of modification.

So them LPA jumpers on the front are for decoration then?

They don’t look like the 27 way AAR ones used for standard AAR coupling.

 

[43096]

So them LPA jumpers on the front are for decoration then?

They don’t look like the 27 way AAR ones used for standard AAR coupling.

No, I would think they are to do with interfacing with the units that they may spend some of their time dragging - there are similar sockets on the front of the 37s ROG use.

The multi-working on the 93s (as it is on the 68s and 88s) uses the two smaller grey sockets next to the orange LPA sockets - and uses standard UIC jumper cables. Presumably some form of WTB control system.

 

[Nym]

No, I would think they are to do with interfacing with the units that they may spend some of their time dragging - there are similar sockets on the front of the 37s ROG use.

The multi-working on the 93s (as it is on the 68s and 88s) uses the two smaller grey sockets next to the orange LPA sockets - and uses standard UIC jumper cables. Presumably some form of WTB control system.

Literally what I said three posts previous...(!)

The 27 way jumpers for dragging units are subtly different to those on the front of the 93.
(They look very much like Module 42 or Module 52 Clip Retained jumpers from LPA, the "27 way" ones used on the front of locos for adapting onto the units through jumpers are slightly different in that they have a different cover casting to the more modern LPA ones.)

 

[craigybagel]

So them LPA jumpers on the front are for decoration then?

They don’t look like the 27 way AAR ones used for standard AAR coupling.

If they've gone to the effort of making them compatible with MKIVs with the TfW mods that would seem a very strange expense to go to given that TfW have shown little interest in them and as I've repeatedly pointed out, they don't appear to have enough power to work TfW services on diesel. Unless there's someone else planning on scraping together the remaining MKIVs when they become available and putting them to some use?

 

[ExRes]

If they've gone to the effort of making them compatible with MKIVs with the TfW mods that would seem a very strange expense to go to given that TfW have shown little interest in them and as I've repeatedly pointed out, they don't appear to have enough power to work TfW services on diesel. Unless there's someone else planning on scraping together the remaining MKIVs when they become available and putting them to some use?

Why would TfW show any interest in a freight loco?

 

[craigybagel]

Why would TfW show any interest in a freight loco?

It's debatable if these are really freight locos since they are seemingly capable of providing ETH. That said, my post was questioning another poster who believed the 93s could or should be compatible with MKIVs. I don't expect TfW to show much interest either

 

[xotGD]

A locomotive with a pantograph would make sense for the Cardiff - Manchester services. A good proportion of the route is wired.

Whether Class 93 is the appropriate loco is a different matter.

 

[ExRes]

It's debatable if these are really freight locos since they are seemingly capable of providing ETH. That said, my post was questioning another poster who believed the 93s could or should be compatible with MKIVs. I don't expect TfW to show much interest either

I must be mistaken then, I didn't think they were fitted with ETH equipment at all

 

[craigybagel]

A locomotive with a pantograph would make sense for the Cardiff - Manchester services. A good proportion of the route is wired.

Whether Class 93 is the appropriate loco is a different matter.

Absolutely, a true Bi-Mode loco would be great. But it needs similar power to a 67 on diesel, and that's all of the time - not just for bursts of a few minutes when the battery is full.

I must be mistaken then, I didn't think they were fitted with ETH equipment at all

Possibly mixing them up with the GBRF Class 99s? They have no ETH, which doesn't stop people suggesting they should be used on Sleeper services.....

 

[Bertie the bus]

I must be mistaken then, I didn't think they were fitted with ETH equipment at all

They've got an ETH index of 96. Post-order but pre-delivery one of the services they were touted as being for, and indeed the ORR application stated such, was the OAO London - Stirling service but that later changed to Voyagers and now seems to be set for these Hitachi units FirstGroup have just ordered.

 

[ExRes]

Possibly mixing them up with the GBRF Class 99s? They have no ETH, which doesn't stop people suggesting they should be used on Sleeper services.....

Thanks @craigybagel probably an age thing

 

[Belfastmarty]

Absolutely, a true Bi-Mode loco would be great. But it needs similar power to a 67 on diesel, and that's all of the time - not just for bursts of a few minutes when the battery is full.

Possibly mixing them up with the GBRF Class 99s? They have no ETH, which doesn't stop people suggesting they should be used on Sleeper services.....

On diesel mode 93s aren't really an appropriate replacement for a 67 or 68. No reason why they shouldn't haul passenger stock, although again they are rather more suitable for under the wires that away from them. Given the lack of appropriate use cases this would seem to make them de-facto freight locos.

 

[Roast Veg]

It might be worth remembering how sluggish a single 67 is, even light loco.

 

[Wyrleybart]

On diesel mode 93s aren't really an appropriate replacement for a 67 or 68. No reason why they shouldn't haul passenger stock, although again they are rather more suitable for under the wires that away from them. Given the lack of appropriate use cases this would seem to make them de-facto freight locos.

Erm, what is a freight loco ?

I would regard 93s as mixed traffic locos simply because they are built with a train supply

 

[The_Train]

It might be worth remembering how sluggish a single 67 is, even light loco.

They're even more sluggish at the moment as most are broken on depots

 

[Belfastmarty]

Erm, what is a freight loco ?

I would regard 93s as mixed traffic locos simply because they are built with a train supply

Yes, I agree they are capapable of mixed traffic use. The point I was making is passenger applications for 93s look few and far between - the most likely use is as a replacement for a 66 on intermodals, if they can find any customers to sign up for them.

 

[craigybagel]

On diesel mode 93s aren't really an appropriate replacement for a 67 or 68. No reason why they shouldn't haul passenger stock, although again they are rather more suitable for under the wires that away from them. Given the lack of appropriate use cases this would seem to make them de-facto freight locos.

Exactly. Which brings me back again to questioning why you would bother making them compatible with MKIVs.

It might be worth remembering how sluggish a single 67 is, even light loco.

A 67 running light is anything but sluggish! Compared to an electric loco maybe.....

With 5 MKIVs and a DVT they can match DMU timings. They're slow to get moving from a standing start, but they pick up speed pretty quickly once they get going.

That said, you wouldn't want to replace them with something with less power - like for example, a 93 on diesel.....

 

[Bertie the bus]

Exactly. Which brings me back again to questioning why you would bother making them compatible with MKIVs.

Because Mk 4's were the planned stock for the London - Stirling service which at one point was intending to use these loco's?

 

[craigybagel]

Because Mk 4's were the planned stock for the London - Stirling service which at one point was intending to use these loco's?

Fair point. I forgot how long this saga has been dragging on for and that that was once a consideration.

 

[Wyrleybart]

Yes, I agree they are capapable of mixed traffic use. The point I was making is passenger applications for 93s look few and far between - the most likely use is as a replacement for a 66 on intermodals, if they can find any customers to sign up for them.

One particularly useful task for the class 93 would be the class 360 unit swapovers between Kettering / Bedford and Northampton. A fairly low speed totter across the Marston Vale then a gallop under the wires to Northampton and back. Although why does the diesel need to go beyond Bletchley, unless the 360s are needing to be hauled.

Obviously these are GBRf workload, who do not have class 93s !!!

 

[Class15]

One particularly useful task for the class 93 would be the class 360 unit swapovers between Kettering / Bedford and Northampton. A fairly low speed totter across the Marston Vale then a gallop under the wires to Northampton and back. Although why does the diesel need to go beyond Bletchley, unless the 360s are needing to be hauled.

Obviously these are GBRf workload, who do not have class 93s !!!

Am I missing something or do these workings not run via Carlton Road Jn, South Tottenham, Lea Jn and Camden Jn? I’ve seen them many times along that route.

 

[D365]

Obviously these are GBRf workload, who do not have class 93s !!!

What are the odds that a Class 99 will be in revenue earning service before the Class 93s?

 

[31160]

One particularly useful task for the class 93 would be the class 360 unit swapovers between Kettering / Bedford and Northampton. A fairly low speed totter across the Marston Vale then a gallop under the wires to Northampton and back. Although why does the diesel need to go beyond Bletchley, unless the 360s are needing to be hauled.

Obviously these are GBRf workload, who do not have class 93s !!!

But even if they got the contract off GBRF how on earth would this pay enough for brand new locos, they might have a super secret job lined up for these but no sign of it yet

 

[Meerkat]

But even if they got the contract off GBRF how on earth would this pay enough for brand new locos, they might have a super secret job lined up for these but no sign of it yet

Or they are relying on regulatory pressure when a politician on a green crusade or a London mayor decides that new shiny locos that can decarbonise and depollute freight trains mean they can restrict diesels. Or a client asks the FOC to help burnish their green credentials after seeing an advert for new shiny green locos.

 

[CDM Transport]

Despite looking all over, I couldn't find a forum on it. Are the 93s replacing the 37s or not? Someone told me they are but someone said that the 93s are not doing unit moves and the 37s will continue doing what they are doing.

 

[ChristopherJ]

GBRf have the contract to move the EMR 360s and would use one of own Flakes (99s) rather than a ROG 93.

Yes. Initially, the EMR drags used a circular route via London, taking them back to their old haunt at Stratford (GA) before heading back up the WCML to Northampton!

 

[LUYMun]

Flakes (99s)

Now that's a new nickname that would stick.

 

[Rail Quest]

93001 is currently being dragged to Castle Donington. A single MK3 is also being dragged there currently.
RTT link: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:R38996/2024-12-24/detailed
[Image shows 37611 attached to 93001 at Crewe]

 

[Wyrleybart]

GBRf have the contract to move the EMR 360s and would use one of own Flakes (99s) rather than a ROG 93.

Yes. Initially, the EMR drags used a circular route via London, taking them back to their old haunt at Stratford (GA) before heading back up the WCML to Northampton!

Of course. I was using that traffic flow as an example. A similar way to the drawback loco used to haul the ECS off the Up Cornish Riviera back from Paddington to Reading, and moreso the ECS for the Down Riviera which would sit on the blocks at Paddington under the overall roof.

From what I read at the time the 93s would replace the Europhoenix / ROG 37s for all their various activities, and with various benefits. An example would be a Kirkdale - Sims class 507 drag with vitually no AC use, compared to say an Ilford - Sims movement where probably the West London incline would be practically the only diesel part odf the journey - dependent on the authorisation of 93s to use OLE.

 

[Spartacus]

Of course. I was using that traffic flow as an example. A similar way to the drawback loco used to haul the ECS off the Up Cornish Riviera back from Paddington to Reading, and moreso the ECS for the Down Riviera which would sit on the blocks at Paddington under the overall roof.

From what I read at the time the 93s would replace the Europhoenix / ROG 37s for all their various activities, and with various benefits. An example would be a Kirkdale - Sims class 507 drag with vitually no AC use, compared to say an Ilford - Sims movement where probably the West London incline would be practically the only diesel part odf the journey - dependent on the authorisation of 93s to use OLE.

I'd rather the 93s replace the 360s, horrible things that always seem to be breaking down!