• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Class 93 Tri-mode Loco

Peter Sarf

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
7,770
Location
Croydon
it sounds pretty simple doesn't it, but the reality is that it isnt. I think essentially F1 has had some of the same issues with drivers complaining of clipping (where engine power is diverted to charge the battery) at inopportune moments. And that's on a track with a known layout where they can pretty much map into the software what's needed.

With a locomotive you have a bit of a dilemma, how you deploy the battery, do you burn it up all at once pulling away using 100% battery before bringing the diesel in, but that of course limited total power.

What about charging? Do you charge to 100% using diesel at the first opportunity? doesnt sound very green, or do you wait until you can charge regeneratively? Nice and green, but not very useful if you have just used the battery energy, have a period coasting then could do with max power to get up a hill/ to mainline speed.


Using Wiki figures the dirty diesel engine outputs 1200hp and the battery a max of 540hp

Say for example it pulls away and 1600hp is demanded from the Various power sources. Does the battery give out say it's full output and the engine tops up? Is the demand shared more equally (less green)?

Then when train is underway at at a modest line speed the battery is say 50% depleted.

What then happens when the power demand reduces say to 1000hp?

Does the engine still run at 1200hp and pump 200hp back into the battery? That's great for the next time you need the umph, say when theine speed increased 40mph -75mph, but not so good for being green and recovering waste energy when you need to brake.

Does the computer manage all this or can the driver have a say? say for example having pulled away and now running at line speed reduces traction demand to 800hp he knows it's unlikely he'll need to brake and need the battery capacity for energy recovery, but does know there is a big hill a few miles down the road for which a fully charged battery would be useful for. Can he then override the system, run the engine up to 1200hp and charge the battery?

*yes of course there will be losses but you get my gist.

The possibilities and scenarios are endless. The problem with putting the human in the chair incharge is that they may not understand how to get the best out of the system, may not judge it well. Or may have different ideas and objectives, for example they may enjoy the power and performance of a fully charged battery and care little for the green credentials and fuel costs.

There is no perfect answer I don't think
Goodness.....
It is enough to make continuous OHLE look very tempting ?.
It is always important to utilise resources in a goal-oriented manner. And one of the most important, flexible and experienced resources is the driver. Many of our projects in connection with optimising rail operations in recent years have included a proportion of calculations performed by more or less intelligent algorithms. Hardly any of them involve automation at the users end. The aim is to provide the driver/signaller with the important information at the right time and in the appropriate way. I well remember that some employees with little experience of day-to-day operations were amazed at how precisely and efficiently a driver can drive a train on the target line of a timetable if you just let him. You don't always have to give him an exact target speed. A time when it should reach point X is sufficient. He can then utilise his knowledge of the terrain to reach this destination as efficiently as possible. The same will presumably also apply to the operation of such a locomotive. The train driver knows the lione and his planned driving strategy, so he can also utilise the system accordingly.
I think this sums it up. A fairly decent automatic process that can, and will be, overridden by the driver. The overrides will be based on growing experience of the route(s) worked. The experience might be built up by individual drivers for themselves only OR perhaps some monitoring leading to recommendations laid down by on high to drivers. Probably aiming to reduce engine use as much as reasonably possible with the engine thrown in when a delay is to be overcome or an unexpected power outage.

Of course, knowing how the lean and efficient world operates these day, the 93s will be working close to their limit with not much spare for recovery. It is what "should" happen rather than reality that decides things.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Adrian Barr

Member
Joined
2 Jul 2020
Messages
448
Location
Doncaster
Apparently ROG 93s are being assessed for use on the Hanwell Bridge 'trip' stone trains to Dagenham, Purfleet and Harlow.

A 59/66 will bring the huge 4,000t jumbo trains to Hanwell, where they are split into 2 or 3 smaller trains and a 93 will 'trip' the rakes to Essex.

I'm curious what the maximum weight would be for these trains using a class 93 on electric power up Acton bank, considering they are Bo-Bo locomotives and it was suggested their performance on electric power would be comparable to a class 88? Perhaps the two comments quoted below give a rough idea:

between 1:100 and 1:85 rising from Acton Main Line to Acton Wells Jn, for about 450m.

On the continent, 1500-1600 tons are generally specified as the maximum load for four-axle AC locomotives with a 1% (relevant not maximal) gradient. The value depends on the TOC operating the type. This means that a train can usually be started even in poor conditions.

(Anyone) Off topic, out of interest, currently does the (cl. 59 ?) loco that hauled the Jumbo train from the West Country take the front portion forward (and another 'local' one take the rear portion), or is it double-headed 59s and/or 66s from the West Country to Hanwell which are then split up to handle each portion?

The jumbo trains from Merehead or Whatley run with two locos if there are two portions, and then each loco takes one portion forward. This might be a class 59 and a 66 "dead in tow" for example. I think a 66/6 may also capable of pulling a jumbo by itself, but when there are two standard 66s on a jumbo I assume they are working in multi.

As an example, this is a snapshot from three overnight trains in the early hours of Friday 30th May, with the portions dividing at Hanwell Bridge Loops as usual (this sometimes happens in the sidings at Southall instead due to overnight engineering work). The return empty jumbos usually start from Wembley yard.
6A90 20:11 Merehead - Hanwell ran with 66588 & 66536 and 31 box wagons. 66588 worked 6L95 00:44 to Purfleet with 14 wagons, while 66536 worked 6O12 02:30 to Newhaven with 17 wagons.
6A09 23:26 Merehead - Hanwell ran with 66953 and 17 box wagons, a single portion train which formed 6L14 03:12 to Chelmsford.
6A01 22:19 Whatley - Hanwell ran with 59101 & 66416 and 42 hopper wagons. 59101 worked 6L28 04:22 to Dagenham with 24 wagons, and 66416 worked 6L02 03:00 to Chesterton with 18 wagons.

And from yesterday lunchtime (Monday 2nd June):
6A40 08:40 Merehead - Hanwell ran with 59205 & 66416 and 38 hopper wagons. 59205 worked 6M49 13:19 to Neasden with 22 wagons, while 66416 worked 6O45 12:58 to Tolworth with 16 wagons.
6A50 10:26 Whatley - Hanwell ran with 59202 & 59001 and 42 hopper wagons. 59202 worked 6L52 14:27 to Dagenham with 24 wagons, while 59001 worked 6M52 13:42 to St Pancras Churchyard with 18 wagons.

Monday's 6A40 (mentioned above) is seen here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/d1059/54562969464/ (Photo: Stephen Dance)
6A50 seen in April with a 59 and 66 on the front: https://www.flickr.com/photos/93293618@N05/54556703124/ (Photo: FEWS FOTS)

The Dagenham portions of these jumbos are usually 24 wagons, hauled by a 59 or 66/6. The early morning 6L28 is planned via Stratford, the afternoon 6L52 via the GOBLIN.

The exact portions on each train can vary, for example 6A40 on 9th April had 18 wagons for Harlow (6L42) plus 16 for Tolworth, as seen here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/154351395@N07/54455361016/ (Photo: Bob G Foster)
The next day it had 20 for Neasden and 20 for Acton (it can also have a Bow portion of 20 wagons, running as 6L43). That might be one problem with using class 93s - one day there's a portion they can haul, the next day it's going somewhere different and needs a 66.

It's worth bearing in mind that the official max load for a standard 66 between South Tottenham and Woodgrange Park is 2060 tons, and 2085 in the opposite direction. I think this is because of the gradients at each end taking the line up onto the arches - for example when there was a speed restriction through Woodgrange Park a few months ago, it caused problems for loaded sand trains from Dagenham if it was raining, because they couldn't get a good run at the bank. Freightliner's loaded sand trains from Dagenham (6V93 to Theale or 6V94 to West Drayton) usually run with 18 or 19 wagons over the GOBLIN - I wonder how a 93 would cope with that?

If class 93s were used on the jumbo portion workings to Essex, it seems likely that the heavier Dagenham portions would continue to be worked by the 59 or 66/6 that pulled the train from the quarry, with a 93 taking the second portion to places like Purfleet / Harlow / Chesterton / Chelmsford that are under the wires. To be useful on these workings they would ideally need to be capable of hauling 18 wagons on these routes (at least via Stratford). If a typical Bo-Bo electric is designed to restart 1600 tons on a 1 in 100 gradient (as suggested above) they might be able to pull 1800 tons with a clear run up Acton bank. If they go ahead with the trial it will be interesting to see how they perform.
 

Nottingham59

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2019
Messages
2,726
Location
Nottingham
If a typical Bo-Bo electric is designed to restart 1600 tons on a 1 in 100 gradient (as suggested above) they might be able to pull 1800 tons with a clear run up Acton bank. If they go ahead with the trial it will be interesting to see how they perform.
If they have a clear run, then 1800t up Acton bank won't be a problem. It's only around 5m of height to gain, and almost any speed at the bottom will be enough to get over the crest. A train doing 20mph can coast up 4m without any power at all.

An issue might arise if they have to stop and restart when the entirety of the train is on the steepest section. An 1800t train on a 1:85 gradient needs around 220kN of tractive effort to start from standing, which is getting close to the quoted specification for a 93, whether on diesel or electric.

As you say, it will be interesting to see how they perform in real life under poor conditions of adhesion.
 

47286Dan

Member
Joined
27 Dec 2018
Messages
444
93001 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY B
93002 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY B
93003 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY B
93004 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY B
93007 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY B
93010 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY B

93003, 93004, 93007 & 93010 moved from the MBEL pool and into the GROG pool.

Dan
 

Trainman40083

Established Member
Joined
29 Jan 2024
Messages
2,518
Location
Derby
93001 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY B
93002 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY B
93003 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY B
93004 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY B
93007 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY B
93010 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY B

93003, 93004, 93007 & 93010 moved from the MBEL pool and into the GROG pool.

Dan
93005 was seen on the M4 this morning, so will no doubt join them
 

47286Dan

Member
Joined
27 Dec 2018
Messages
444
This mornings test runs.

93001 GROG WORKSP DY 260Q041E04 F NEWARKNGT B
93007 GROG WORKSP DY 260Q041E04 F NEWARKNGT B

Dan
 

Bob figgis

Member
Joined
11 Apr 2020
Messages
133
Location
Tinsley TMD
Looks like the latest delivery has come unstuck on the last mile. According to a post on a local worksop facebook group. The lorry is currently stuck on the roundabout outside Asda.
Sorry i cant link to the photo as i dont do facebook
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2025-06-04 at 09.06.12.jpeg
    Screenshot 2025-06-04 at 09.06.12.jpeg
    661.7 KB · Views: 251

Bobcp

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2016
Messages
33
Location
Hinckley, Leicester
93001 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY B
93002 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY B
93003 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY B
93004 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY B
93007 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY B
93010 GROG WORKSP DY WORKSP DY B

93003, 93004, 93007 & 93010 moved from the MBEL pool and into the GROG pool.

Dan
Wonder why 93006 not included ?
 

Trainman40083

Established Member
Joined
29 Jan 2024
Messages
2,518
Location
Derby
93007 +93001 wait at Newark Northgate circa 14.50
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20250604_144917066_HDR.jpg
    IMG_20250604_144917066_HDR.jpg
    4.1 MB · Views: 157

Tracked

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2011
Messages
1,275
Location
53.5440°N 1.1510°W
Looks like the latest delivery has come unstuck on the last mile. According to a post on a local worksop facebook group. The lorry is currently stuck on the roundabout outside Asda.
Sorry i cant link to the photo as i dont do facebook
Hah! saw it on the M18, just east of the Maltby turn off, around 5:45am this morning
 

Bobcp

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2016
Messages
33
Location
Hinckley, Leicester
Does this mean only 93008 and 93009 to arrive in the UK then ?
That is correct - 93005 arrived at Worksop this morning.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Not being registered can be for multiple reasons. For example it may not have not been sold to the customer or it may still require certifying.
Just seemed a little strange that locos delivered to Worksop after 93006 are included.
 
Last edited:

bahnause

Member
Joined
30 Dec 2016
Messages
706
Location
bülach (switzerland)
An issue might arise if they have to stop and restart when the entirety of the train is on the steepest section. An 1800t train on a 1:85 gradient needs around 220kN of tractive effort to start from standing, which is getting close to the quoted specification for a 93, whether on diesel or electric.

As you say, it will be interesting to see how they perform in real life under poor conditions of adhesion.
Depending on the infrastructure, the requirement to be able to restart a train at any point makes little sense, as even the shortest critical sections of track would cause enormous restrictions. For this reason, ‘relevant gradients’ are often used and the maximum gradient is ignored if only short sections of track are affected. It is possible that a train can no longer be started at a certain section, but the risk is very small.

It might take a while to restart a train and make all sorts of ugly noises though..
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
15,401
Location
Bristol
Depending on the infrastructure, the requirement to be able to restart a train at any point makes little sense, as even the shortest critical sections of track would cause enormous restrictions. For this reason, ‘relevant gradients’ are often used and the maximum gradient is ignored if only short sections of track are affected. It is possible that a train can no longer be started at a certain section, but the risk is very small.

It might take a while to restart a train and make all sorts of ugly noises though..
On this bank, there is a high chance of the train being faced with a wait at a red signal on the gradient. Being able to restart from a stand at the signals on Acton Bank is not an excessive requirement.
 

87015

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2006
Messages
4,990
Location
GEML/WCML/SR
On this bank, there is a high chance of the train being faced with a wait at a red signal on the gradient. Being able to restart from a stand at the signals on Acton Bank is not an excessive requirement.
66s also need to be taken off then, as they require a clear run from Acton on trains of that weight (largely due to being knackered, years overdue proper overhauls and unable to meet anything like the agreed running times)
 

Bertie the bus

Established Member
Joined
15 Aug 2014
Messages
3,032
Is there any source for this supposed trial of the 93s on the stone train other than a little bird telling a repeatedly returning banned member? I've seen plenty of discussion of it but no confirmation or source.
 

Suraggu

Member
Joined
23 Oct 2013
Messages
1,011
Location
The Far North
Is there any source for this supposed trial of the 93s on the stone train other than a little bird telling a repeatedly returning banned member? I've seen plenty of discussion of it but no confirmation or source.
There are no sources regarding this testing in the London area.
 

Adrian Barr

Member
Joined
2 Jul 2020
Messages
448
Location
Doncaster
Is there any source for this supposed trial of the 93s on the stone train other than a little bird telling a repeatedly returning banned member? I've seen plenty of discussion of it but no confirmation or source.

Good question, I thought it might be mentioned in this Modern Railways news article (which it wouldn't let me access until now due to being "premium content") but that only talks about the possible use of class 93s on intermodal.


While it had been rumoured Freightliner was looking to take on eight of the 10 ‘93s’, it is understood the operator wishes to explore the ability of the new locos before making a firm commitment. Key requirements would be the ability of the diesel engine/battery combination to haul an intermodal train from Felixstowe over the non-electrified branch to Ipswich, and whether the capability in electric mode would match the performance of a pair of ‘90s’ on the steep climbs on the northern stretches of the West Coast main line.
Modern Railways - 22nd March 2024
 

Bertie the bus

Established Member
Joined
15 Aug 2014
Messages
3,032
Even that article only states there is a rumour Freightliner intend to lease some and it was written over a year ago. There was the reported Shap trial to showcase them to potential customers, but the Shap trials have yet to materialise when they were supposedly meant to take place last month.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
15,401
Location
Bristol
66s also need to be taken off then, as they require a clear run from Acton on trains of that weight (largely due to being knackered, years overdue proper overhauls and unable to meet anything like the agreed running times)
As ever, there's workarounds, but each workaround reduces the operational flexibility.
 

47286Dan

Member
Joined
27 Dec 2018
Messages
444
This mornings test runs

93002 GROG WORKSP DY 260Q041E05 F NEWARKNGT B
93003 GROG WORKSP DY 260Q041E05 F NEWARKNGT B

Dan
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
15,401
Location
Bristol
Could somebody clarify what the different TOPS pools being referred to are used for? It's been a while since I had TOPS access and never had to use it that in-depth.
 

Rhysdabeast

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2020
Messages
3,032
Location
Crewe
Could somebody clarify what the different TOPS pools being referred to are used for? It's been a while since I had TOPS access and never had to use it that in-depth.
GROG is ROG's main pool for locos and MBEL is for Private Owner Electric Locomotives
 

Spartacus

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2009
Messages
3,390
Apparently there were a few issues yesterday which curtailed testing, but 93004 & 93007 are booked out today.
 

Top