Class 68 Progress, what's the latest?

[Sunbird24]

As far as I remember (the technical data sheet seems to have disappeared from the Vossloh website), they are Caterpillar engines instead of the EMD 710's in the Euro 4000, presumably to save space and weight.

The brochure issued at Innotrans in 2010 is here http://www.vossloh-espana.com/media/downloads/pdfs/flyer/EURO_DUAL-_EN_July_2012.pdf
The engine is indeed Caterpillar but the size and rating is optional, as is the Co-Co vs Bo-Bo option
As yet there has been no confirmed information regarding the South African Euro Dual, but I have seen the roof of an odd looking Euro 4000 type almost hidden so may check again later this week.

 

[DownSouth]

As far as I remember (the technical data sheet seems to have disappeared from the Vossloh website), they are Caterpillar engines instead of the EMD 710's in the Euro 4000, presumably to save space and weight.

Emission standards will probably be involved as well, EMD 710 does not meet Tier IV.

 

[Sunbird24]

Emission standards will probably be involved as well, EMD 710 does not meet Tier IV.

Not sure if that affects South Africa and they are the only customer so far with an order for 50. The Euro 4000's they ordered at the same time certainly don't.
A lot of customers seem to be able to find ways of getting around this new rule, such as buying engines ahead of the deadline and using them later, or buying second-hand engines for new builds.
Since Caterpillar now own EMD there is no problem phasing out the EMD products and inserting their own.

 

[al.currie93]

Okay, if people want some more information on acceleration, I've managed to do some measurements using a speedometer on my mobile over yhethe past few days; a Chiltern class 68 with 6 Mk3s and a Mk3 DVT accelerates to 50mph in 60 seconds. For comparison, a class 377 accelerates to 50mph in 50 seconds according to my measurements.

Given that the class 377 has three less vehicles than the class 68/Mk3/Mk3 DVT train, that is very impressive acceleration - I reckon that a class 68 + three Mk2s + Mk2 DBSO may actually match the class 377 for acceleration.

 

[ac6000cw]

Okay, if people want some more information on acceleration, I've managed to do some measurements using a speedometer on my mobile over yhethe past few days; a Chiltern class 68 with 6 Mk3s and a Mk3 DVT accelerates to 50mph in 60 seconds. For comparison, a class 377 accelerates to 50mph in 50 seconds according to my measurements.

Given that the class 377 has three less vehicles than the class 68/Mk3/Mk3 DVT train, that is very impressive acceleration - I reckon that a class 68 + three Mk2s + Mk2 DBSO may actually match the class 377 for acceleration.

Note that is considerably faster than a 172 DMU - the info here http://www.porterbrook.co.uk/downloads/brochures/172 Brochure.pdf - says "Accelerates to 25mph in 45 seconds; 50mph in 80 seconds; 75 mph in 150 seconds and 100 mph in 362 seconds on flat level track, with low wind. These figures are achieved with the vehicle in tare condition with all engines at operational temperature." (for an empty train - 'tare condition').

A 6-car 172 has about 2900 hp and weighs about 240 tonnes, versus 7 x Mk3 + 68 at about 340 tonnes - so quite impressive performance from a modern electric AC drive system on 4 axles total, versus the hydro-mechanical drive in the DMU using two axles per vehicle.

 

[DownSouth]

Not sure if that affects South Africa and they are the only customer so far with an order for 50. The Euro 4000's they ordered at the same time certainly don't.

The South African orders certainly would be affected if the EU rules apply equally to units built for export, which is something I would certainly find plausible.

It could well be simple a case of Vossloh no longer having a licence to use Progress Rail (formerly EMD) powertrains, which they would have lost due to the move by Progress to build more complete locomotives in house and wind back the licensing of Progress designs.

A lot of customers seem to be able to find ways of getting around this new rule, such as buying engines ahead of the deadline and using them later, or buying second-hand engines for new builds.

Changing every part except the serial number plate is another approach.

Since Caterpillar now own EMD there is no problem phasing out the EMD products and inserting their own.

It's not that simple - Caterpillar has to keep Progress at arm's length to satisfy the conditions which allowed Progress to buy and absorb EMD.

This has the effect of Progress having to buy Caterpillar engines the same way any other loco manufacturer (such as Vossloh or Bombardier) does, putting them on an equal footing with Vossloh, Motive Power Industries, Bombardier and so on. This equal playing field for all Cat-powered locos is a significant disadvantage compared to GE, now the only company with the ability to customise their prime movers for their own locomotives.

 

[CosherB]

A lot of customers seem to be able to find ways of getting around this new rule, such as buying engines ahead of the deadline and using them later, or buying second-hand engines for new builds.

Oh hells bells, surely folks aren't putting old engines into new locos? It was bad enough when 'less old' engines were put into old locos!!! Maybe there's hope for getting more Class 60s (and dare I suggest even 58s ?!) back onto the mainline ...... although I'm sure politics will inevitabley get in the way. Anyway, well off topic now ....

 

[ac6000cw]

The South African orders certainly would be affected if the EU rules apply equally to units built for export, which is something I would certainly find plausible.

It could well be simple a case of Vossloh no longer having a licence to use Progress Rail (formerly EMD) powertrains, which they would have lost due to the move by Progress to build more complete locomotives in house and wind back the licensing of Progress designs.

The relationship between EMD and the factory in Valencia goes back a long time, and is not entirely one-way - for example, Vossloh have done quite a lot of the design work for the new Cat-powered EMD F125 US passenger loco (info from a Modern Railways article on the factory).

That said, given that the EuroLights and EuroDuals use ABB alternators/motors/invertors and Cat engines, the current batches of Euro4000s might well be the last EMD powered locos from Valencia....

 

[Sunbird24]

More information direct from DRS has been published in the May issue of Railways Illustrated, pages 44-48. This is a lot of information so just a few snippets here. The first 4 names are:
68016 Fearless, 68017 Reliance, 68018 Vigilance and 68019 Hornet.
The final member should be delivered in February 2016.
“They are not named after Warships, the names are there to project strength and
power." is a quote from Tony Bush, DRS performance director.
Work has already started on the first class 88 which will be 88001 Revolution.
This suggests that it may make an appearance here this year and it is hoped that they will all be in service by the end of 2016, mostly on intermodal services.
The article has a complete run-down of the entire fleet including details of planned changes to be made when all the 68/88 locos have been delivered.
Anyone considering speculation is advised to read this article first.

Nothing visible in the factory yards this morning other than several trams and 3 South African Euro 4000HPs, including AFRO4015, the others having no decals yet.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's not that simple - Caterpillar has to keep Progress at arm's length to satisfy the conditions which allowed Progress to buy and absorb EMD.

Caterpillar also own Progress Rail and has done so since 2006.

The relationship between EMD and the factory in Valencia goes back a long time, and is not entirely one-way - for example, Vossloh have done quite a lot of the design work for the new (V20 Cat-powered) EMD F125 US passenger loco (as covered in a Modern Railways article on the factory).

Vossloh Valencia also build the F125 bodyshells and ship them to USA for completion.

 

[ARoo21]

Latest on Class 68's for Chiltern ; today 68 010 was on the 16:47 from MYB, 68 013 on the 17:15 and 68 015 on the 17:50 . The 18:15 was 67 013 while 18:47 was fellow Class 67 - 67 008. Heard from someone at MYB that this would be the last day of operations for Class 67's, whether it's true I'm not sure, watch this space though!

 

[Freightmaster]

Heard from someone at MYB that this would be the last day of operations for Class 68's, whether it's true I'm not sure, watch this space though!

That's a rather sudden change in traction policy, isn't it?

 

[Chris125]

Given that the class 377 has three less vehicles than the class 68/Mk3/Mk3 DVT train, that is very impressive acceleration - I reckon that a class 68 + three Mk2s + Mk2 DBSO may actually match the class 377 for acceleration.

377 on AC or DC? I'd imagine their performance is capped on the 3rd rail network.

 

[al.currie93]

377 on AC or DC? I'd imagine their performance is capped on the 3rd rail network.

The type of electricity source for a 377 would make no difference to acceleration at all by my knowledge - whether that ultimate source is AC or DC current, the train still uses exactly the same AC three-phase induction motors, supplied with three phase alternating current from a three phase inverter and speed-regulated by changing the frequency of that current. Either way, the direct source of electricity for the motors remains the same component at the same voltage, and any prior electricity conversion between the 25kV AC lines/750V DC rails and that inverter will have no effect on the performance of the motor

 

[Domh245]

With the traction equipment, it isn't the voltage that limits it, it is primarily the current. With DC, the current draw has to be limited (and resultantly there is less performance) because the substations wouldn't be able to handle it, especially if lots of units are accelerating simultaneously.

 

[ARoo21]

That's a rather sudden change in traction policy, isn't it?

Meant to say 67's, it had been a long day out in London

 

[DY444]

The type of electricity source for a 377 would make no difference to acceleration at all by my knowledge - whether that ultimate source is AC or DC current, the train still uses exactly the same AC three-phase induction motors, supplied with three phase alternating current from a three phase inverter and speed-regulated by changing the frequency of that current. Either way, the direct source of electricity for the motors remains the same component at the same voltage, and any prior electricity conversion between the 25kV AC lines/750V DC rails and that inverter will have no effect on the performance of the motor

Wrong. 377s are subject to a current limit on DC which degrades the performance markedly compared to running on AC.

 

[al.currie93]

Wrong. 377s are subject to a current limit on DC which degrades the performance markedly compared to running on AC.

Oh of course, induction machines have high start-up currents and DC third rail are subject to higher currents with the lower voltage - I remember that being an issue with the 377s, 444s and 450s when they were introduced! That would affect the performance then, yes - I stand corrected!

That's what happens when you move from studying one frield of engineering to another

 

[apk55]

Oh of course, induction machines have high start-up currents and DC third rail are subject to higher currents with the lower voltage - I remember that being an issue with the 377s, 444s and 450s when they were introduced! That would affect the performance then, yes - I stand corrected!

That's what happens when you move from studying one frield of engineering to another

A 3 phase motor driven from an electronic inverter will take very little power (or line current) at start up as the electronics is only required to produce a low frequency/low voltage output. The power drawn will increase with increasing speed, until either the line current limit is reached or the inverter voltage limit is reached, where the motor torque or TE would have to be reduced. Therefor a unit running in restricted line current mode would have the same starting tractive effort, but the tractive effort would fall off more rapidly with increasing speed because of the power limit. so the acceleration would be limited at speed

I also find it interesting that a class 68 with 7 coaches can accelerate as well as a 6 car 172 DMU unit despite being heavier and having a less powerful engine. This shows the superiority of an electric transmission system over the torque converter system which much be losing a lot of engine power in torque converter losses and none optimal engine operating conditions!

 

[ARoo21]

Saturday 2nd May - one Class 67 (67 014) and 68 012. 68 010 and 015 had been on failed trains the day before, whether locomotive failure I'm not sure. 68 008 has also been out and about in the past 10 days for Chiltern.

 

[Sunbird24]

Saturday 2nd May - one Class 67 (67 014) and 68 012. 68 010 and 015 had been on failed trains the day before, whether locomotive failure I'm not sure. 68 008 has also been out and about in the past 10 days for Chiltern.

That seems to be an unusually high number of failures on one line in one day, or were some perhaps caused by changes to diagrams for later trains caused by an original failure?
Listening to announcements at Banbury a couple of months ago lots of trains were running late due to an earlier "incident" and this continued throughout the day with different announcements for subsequent trains leading one to think there were lots of problems. In fact it was all caused by a single incident on the ECML in the morning which severely delayed trains from the North East but had a knock-on effect on trains in both directions throughout the day.
By the way, no further news from Albuixech regarding the next batch yet, except that construction is well under way with the first ones expected to appear in a month or so but with still 2-3 months of work to be done before they are ready for shipping.

 

[59CosG95]

That seems to be an unusually high number of failures on one line in one day, or were some perhaps caused by changes to diagrams for later trains caused by an original failure?
Listening to announcements at Banbury a couple of months ago lots of trains were running late due to an earlier "incident" and this continued throughout the day with different announcements for subsequent trains leading one to think there were lots of problems. In fact it was all caused by a single incident on the ECML in the morning which severely delayed trains from the North East but had a knock-on effect on trains in both directions throughout the day.
By the way, no further news from Albuixech regarding the next batch yet, except that construction is well under way with the first ones expected to appear in a month or so but with still 2-3 months of work to be done before they are ready for shipping.

And the 88s? What about them?

 

[83G/84D]

And the 88s? What about them?

According to TOPS 88008 is under genius control. Anyone with access to genius able to check on it?

I suspect an error.

 

[Sunbird24]

And the 88s? What about them?

The 88 build will follow on from the 68 second batch. The original order from DRS was for 15 confirmed and 10 option of 68's to be followed by 10 88's. The option was confirmed during the construction phase of the first batch.
The latest announcement from DRS earlier this year suggested delivery dates of 2 per month from October this year followed by the 88's. Construction of 88001 Revolution has already started. Given that the delivery time is around 7 months after commencement of construction at best for production series we can expect the first one to appear for testing in early 2016. This may take place at Velim or Old Dalby. Once initial testing has confirmed no serious problems we could expect the remainder to be delivered 2 per month from around March/April 2016.
I did give more details earlier in this thread so try looking back a couple of pages to early April.
This should take you to that post http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2134852&postcount=909

 

[ARoo21]

Another 2 failures last week (012/015)
68 008 came back from Crewe with 2 57's and has since been on passenger services
68 012 went from Wembley - Crewe for repairs on 16/5/15

 

[Peter Sarf]

I noted 68001 came down from Crewe to WembleyLMD with 68012 last weekend (Saturday 06/06/2015). Puzzled as I thought 68001 was not fitted with the equipment needed to work with Chilterns push-pull Mk3 stock.

I also gather that 68015 left WembleyLMD that day to go to Eastleigh. I think it had only just come from Stourbridge on Friday (05/06/2015). Is London-Eastleigh a new sphere of operation for them ?. Wondering where the next ten 68s will be used.

 

[33056]

68001 has gone to Stourbridge Jn for driver training.

 

[Sunbird24]

I noted 68001 came down from Crewe to WembleyLMD with 68012 last weekend (Saturday 06/06/2015). Puzzled as I thought 68001 was not fitted with the equipment needed to work with Chilterns push-pull Mk3 stock.

I also gather that 68015 left WembleyLMD that day to go to Eastleigh. I think it had only just come from Stourbridge on Friday (05/06/2015). Is London-Eastleigh a new sphere of operation for them ?. Wondering where the next ten 68s will be used.

If I recall correctly, Eastleigh carried out a generator replacement on one of the first units delivered. Perhaps Crewe does not have capability for certain major repairs which can be better done at Eastleigh? One visited the area during March also, I missed it at Worting Junction by a few minutes!
The next 10 will replace the remaining 47's according to a recent DRS announcement, there is a link earlier in this thread and it has also been published in several magazines recently. It was an interview with DRS bosses Nicholson and Tony Bush (from memory, apologies if I got the names wrong) first published in the Railway Magazine earlier this year.
The next batch should start to appear any day now, currently the yard is full of Euro 4000HPs waiting for shipment to South Africa, the last members just having finishing touches.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

I also find it interesting that a class 68 with 7 coaches can accelerate as well as a 6 car 172 DMU unit despite being heavier and having a less powerful engine. This shows the superiority of an electric transmission system over the torque converter system which much be losing a lot of engine power in torque converter losses and none optimal engine operating conditions!

Hmm, depends on a number of factors, as corverting the energy into movement on both methods loses some of the power, usually to heat. It would also depend on the amount of power drawn from the engine to run auxiliaries such as hotel power for the train or air compressors, lighting ets as they will also draw on engine power and thus reduce the amount available for traction. A 185 uses the same engine as a voyager kicking out 750 horses, but theres only 547 of that that actually reaches the railhead

i have pulled out of york on a 185 on a few occasions alongside a crosscountry 220, with first gear the two units were side by side, soon as second gear kicked in at 40mph the 185 gives it legs and leaves the voyager for dust. The voyager caught up eventually by colton junction but by that point the higher top end speed of the voyager was giving it the edge over the 185.

 

[Sunbird24]

Surely the driving wheel diameter has a say in the performance of all of them. A larger diameter will give more speed but less power for a given power at the axle. The 68 has 1100mm diameter wheels, as built, but reducing slightly with tyre wear. I have not seen figures for any of the quoted multiple units so no idea if they are the same or different. Nor do I know the amount of tyre wear permitted.
Additionally, the traction motors determine the maximum amount of power at the rail, regardless of the power generated by the engine. For the class 68 that is 600kW or a shade over 800 horses for each of the 4 motors, or 3200 HP in total. Less if the ancillaries demand more than the balance.
If the 88s have the same traction motors they will have the same limitation regardless of how much extra they get from the overhead, just that the ancillaries will be able to take more without affecting traction performance. With their smaller engines they will be on reduced traction power in diesel mode.
Of interest, Seimens bogie data are here: https://www.mobility.siemens.com/mo.../components-and-systems/bogies-catalog-en.pdf these include new and worn wheel diameters, the difference is more than I had anticipated.
The Bombadier sheets have no detailed specifications for the Flexx eco400.

 

[59CosG95]

A 185 uses the same engine as a voyager kicking out 750 horses, but theres only 547 of that that actually reaches the railhead

i have pulled out of york on a 185 on a few occasions alongside a crosscountry 220, with first gear the two units were side by side, soon as second gear kicked in at 40mph the 185 gives it legs and leaves the voyager for dust. The voyager caught up eventually by colton junction but by that point the higher top end speed of the voyager was giving it the edge over the 185.

All the Voyagers (i.e. 220s and 221s) have all been derated to 700 horses. Meridians still have 750 though.