Class 93 Tri-mode Loco

[xotGD]

Who can tell , but which liveries do people think these new locos will look good in ?

That's an easy one Rail blue or large-logo blue. Same as every other locomotive.

 

[ExRes]

That's an easy one Rail blue or large-logo blue. Same as every other locomotive.

Personally I think they should carry the same livery as the 701s, they'll look well matched when they tow the units to Newport for scrapping

 

[Wyrleybart]

It was more than a proposal: they actually hired the flats in. I think they were paired Multifret wagons so it was actually 50 flats, which were permanently coupled in pairs.

I didn't realise that. Must have been later than the plan I heard about.
What I heard or read was one of the five sets would be on maintenance at Coatbridge - call it set 1. Sets 2 3 4 and 5 would leave the Eastern port with sets 4 and 5 dropped off at Dallam for stripping and reloading. Sets 2 and 3 would continue to Coatbridge, where set 2 would go on maintenance and sets 1 and 3 would return, collecting 4 and 5 at Dallam.

Rinse and repeat all week until all five sets would have had their day at Coatbridge.
Whether it could have been made to work I don't know, but did those Multifrets deliver "43096" ?
Obviously it would have been class 90s on these, but DBC don't believe in 90s anymore

Which liveries do people think these new locos will look good in ?

I think they would look rather good in Austrian Federal Railways red with a white stripe, as they certainly wouldn't be leased by the other "red" operator.
Unlikely to wear DRS blue nor GBRf blue, so that would leave Colas orange and yellow, or maybe DCR grey, unless any new operators rock up to the party.

 

[ac6000cw]

It ain't quite that neat, unfortunately.
1. The FIAs (Eurotwins) had to run on balanced wheelsets;
2. The payload is markedly less. On class C lines (= 20t axleload) the payload allowed at S speed is 107.5t; at SS it is 99.5t, and at 140kph (BR only) it is 75.5t. (Taken from the data panel on the wagon.) In UK terms 107.5t @ 60mph; 99.5t @ 75mph; 75.5t @ 87.5mph. No idea wher you would be for 100mph.
Pat

Which does rather suggest why 75mph is the usual maximum speed for intermodals - it's a good compromise between operating speed, wagon cost, maintenance cost, track forces and ride quality.

Assuming this is a picture of the correct info panel - https://gingespotting.smugmug.com/Wagons/F-TOPSCode/FIA/i-JBzDsND/A - the tare weight (for the twin set) is 36.55t, so at 87.5mph with 75.5t payload it works out to only 14t axle load (eight axles per set). Basically passenger stock axle load levels, but on probably less sophisticated bogies.

 

[Dunfanaghy Rd]

That

Which does rather suggest why 75mph is the usual maximum speed for intermodals - it's a good compromise between operating speed, wagon cost, maintenance cost, track forces and ride quality.

Assuming this is a picture of the correct info panel - https://gingespotting.smugmug.com/Wagons/F-TOPSCode/FIA/i-JBzDsND/A - the tare weight (for the twin set) is 36.55t, so at 87.5mph with 75.5t payload it works out to only 14t axle load (eight axles per set). Basically passenger stock axle load levels, but on probably less sophisticated bogies.

That's the type. Caption says Megafret but should be Multifret.
Pat

 

[Nottingham59]

Lots of new details in this article in Rail Express

The future of UK traction arrives | The Railway Hub

Richard Clinnick witnesses the arrival of the first Class 93 and provides all there is to know about the new tri-mode locomotive.

www.therailwayhub.co.uk

“They are equally suited for freight traffic and passenger services. They could haul TransPennine Express’ Mk.5As without a problem and a number of passenger operators have enquired about the locomotives.” ...

Future options​

“It became clear from conversations that the tri-mode option is appealing. In the freight sector there are operators using electric traction but they have to swap traction for ‘66s’, or use ‘66s’ for complete journeys under the wires. This can eliminate that.”

 

[ac6000cw]

Lots of new details in this article in Rail Express

The future of UK traction arrives | The Railway Hub

Richard Clinnick witnesses the arrival of the first Class 93 and provides all there is to know about the new tri-mode locomotive.

www.therailwayhub.co.uk

Yes, that appears to be the same Rail Express article I was referring to upthread (I had the paper magazine version of it at the time).

 

[XCTurbostar]

Given that “a number of passenger operators have enquired” is a small list considering TPE are binning the MK5a‘s I assume this could only be Chiltern and or GWR?

 

[AndrewE]

Given that “a number of passenger operators have enquired” is a small list considering TPE are binning the MK5a‘s I assume this could only be Chiltern and or GWR?

And Scotrail - if the HSTs have failed to deliver? You could then also bring back the Clansman and restore the WCMLs links north of just Glasgow and Edinburgh.

 

[ac6000cw]

Remember that the Rail Ops UK people interviewed in that article have a duty to promote/talk up the company and its services, and 'enquiries' are not 'serious interest'. I wish them well, but these are expensive, complex, locos and that will have to be reflected in the leasing/hire costs somewhere. You can sell almost anything if it's cheap enough, but the skill is in maximising the profit...that's why good sales people and contract negotiators are worth their weight in gold!

ROG claimed the 93s have a third of the fuel costs of a 66, and weigh one third less, so much cheaper track charges too.

Yes a '66' might use 3x more fuel but it also has nearly 3x the sustained power on diesel (and I think the last time I looked, the track access charges for a 66 were quite low - and in any case, there will be a lot more axles in the train behind presumably paying track access charges - e.g. 30 x bogie container flats is 120 axles...).

 

[12LDA28C]

Given that “a number of passenger operators have enquired” is a small list considering TPE are binning the MK5a‘s I assume this could only be Chiltern and or GWR?

Chiltern want to get rid of their 68s and LHCS, not get more locos and coaching stock....

 

[ac6000cw]

Chiltern want to get rid of their 68s, not get even more...

Yes, and in any case the 93's on diesel plus battery are nowhere near powerful enough to replace a 68, especially once you take into account the ETS load as well.

 

[Trainbike46]

Remember that the Rail Ops UK people interviewed in that article have a duty to promote/talk up the company and its services, and 'enquiries' are not 'serious interest'. I wish them well, but these are expensive, complex, locos and that will have to be reflected in the leasing/hire costs somewhere. You can sell almost anything if it's cheap enough, but the skill is in maximising the profit...that's why good sales people and contract negotiators are worth their weight in gold!

you (and others) keep stating that the 93s (and sometimes 99s) are "expensive", but is there any publicly available information suggesting how much they are, or any comparison to other locomotive lease charges / sale prices?

Chiltern want to get rid of their 68s, not get even more...

93s arent 68s

 

[AndrewE]

you (and others) keep stating that the 93s (and sometimes 99s) are "expensive", but is there any publicly available information suggesting how much they are, or any comparison to other locomotive lease charges / sale prices?

Whether there is or not, it is very worrying that freight operators have reportedly been replacing electric traction with diesels because of the cost of electricity for traction.
Rail shoots itself in the foot (again) when it could have claimed lots of green brownie points. Of course it is the consequence of the railways' financial structures and our government's indifference to environmental matters rather than a malicious conspiracy by these private companies...

 

[12LDA28C]

93s arent 68s

Indeed what I meant to say was Chiltern are getting rid of their 68s and LHCS and are not in the market for replacement in the form of more (newer) locos and LHCS. As pointed out above, 93s would not be a suitable replacement anyway.

 

[ac6000cw]

you (and others) keep stating that the 93s (and sometimes 99s) are "expensive", but is there any publicly available information suggesting how much they are, or any comparison to other locomotive lease charges / sale prices?

I'll get my 'wet finger' out and try...

In 2018, when Rail Ops UK first announced they were ordering ten 93s, they said it was "a deal worth more than £40 million" (see https://www.railmagazine.com/news/n...s-fuels-its-ambitions-with-tri-mode-class-93s ). So £4m per loco at 2018 prices from Stadler. It took till 2021 and Star Capital buying a majority share of of Rail Ops UK by before they had the money to order them. Given what's happened between 2018 and 2021, I suspect the price has increased over that period (UK inflation was about 5%, Spain 3% over that period, so index that £4m to around £4.2m).

In 2012, the value of the DRS order for the first 15 class 68s was estimated at £45m (according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_68#Order_and_production ) - so £3m per loco, 10 years ago for a diesel-only equivalent. I can't find any mention of the value/cost of the ten class 88's ordered later, but I'd be surprised if they were cheaper than the 68s.

For comparison, the original EWS order for 250 cl. 66 in 1996 was worth £375m, so £1.5m per loco. From 1996 to 2021 UK & US inflation was about 1.6x-1.7x, so a 66 would in theory cost about £2.5m in 2021 (and might have cost about £2.1m in 2012, for comparison to the cl. 68 price).

So I suspect (a very wet finger estimate!) that a 93 might be 1.5x to 1.7x the cost of a notional new cl. 66 in 2021.

If anyone has better information on the loco prices I'd be very interested to know, but usually it's hard to find because it's (understandably) pretty commercially sensitive information. The same goes for leasing costs.

 

[superkev]

Lots of new details in this article in Rail Express

The future of UK traction arrives | The Railway Hub

Richard Clinnick witnesses the arrival of the first Class 93 and provides all there is to know about the new tri-mode locomotive.

www.therailwayhub.co.uk

Interesting article but what it doesn't make clear is the capacity of the battery which should be given in Kw/hr rather than just kw.
It says the 2 200kw batteries will add 400kw (570hp) to the output but for how long.
If its 400kw/hr that would last for around an hour or theoretically 4 times (1600kw) that for 15min although in practice discharging batteries faster much reduces there capacity.
Re Transpennine pulling mk5s 1600kw plus the diesel may well be enough to get up the hill from Stalybridge to Marsden.
Perhaps the forthcoming class 99 may be a better bet for TP.
All this higlights how short sighted the snail paced drip feed electrification of TP is.
K

 

[43096]

Given that “a number of passenger operators have enquired” is a small list considering TPE are binning the MK5a‘s I assume this could only be Chiltern and or GWR?

And given that statement is from ROG, the statement will be being hyped up. Operators enquiring may just be someone asking for the technical specs and nothing more is heard. It may even be an enquiry about using them for stock moves...

 

[ac6000cw]

Interesting article but what it doesn't make clear is the capacity of the battery which should be given in Kw/hr rather than just kw.

I've not seen any info about the storage capacity of the battery, just its rated discharge power (the 400kW rating).
I doubt it's capable of more than 400kW output - I think they would be shouting '1600kW' from the rooftops if it was capable of anything like that...

Re Transpennine pulling mk5s 1600kw plus the diesel may well be enough to get up the hill from Stalybridge to Marsden.
Perhaps the forthcoming class 99 may be a better bet for TP.

According to another thread, TP are planning to stop using the Mk5s soon anyway.

The class 99 is designed as a freight loco with a 75mph top speed and no ETS (as far as I'm aware).

 

[Nottingham59]

it doesn't make clear is the capacity of the battery

The battery capacity is 80kWh, so that's 12 minutes (1/5 of an hour) at 400kW peak load.

1600kw plus the diesel may well be enough to get up the hill from Stalybridge to Marsden.

The diesel is only 900kW. So not best suited to climbing hills off the wires. The battery seems to be for accelerating up to line speed once or twice before recharging.
The real performance benefit will come on AC power, where the 93 will deliver over twice the power of a 66 (4000kW vs 1850kW)

 

[Trainbike46]

I've not seen any info about the storage capacity of the battery, just its rated discharge power (the 400kW rating).
I doubt it's capable of more than 400kW output - I think they would be shouting '1600kW' from the rooftops if it was capable of anything like that...


According to another thread, TP are planning to stop using the Mk5s soon anyway.

The class 99 is designed as a freight loco with a 75mph top speed and no ETS (as far as I'm aware).

Isn't an ETS connection still used on freight locos for things like refrigerated containers?

The battery capacity is 80kWh, so that's 12 minutes (1/5 of an hour) at 400kW peak load.

The diesel is only 900kW. So not best suited to climbing hills off the wires. The battery seems to be for accelerating up to line speed once or twice before recharging.
The real performance benefit will come on AC power, where the 93 will deliver over twice the power of a 66 (4000kW vs 1850kW)

And the 99 is even higher power than that, with 6000 kW on electric mode being 3 times the power of a 66

 

[ac6000cw]

The battery capacity is 80kWh, so that's 12 minutes (1/5 of an hour) at 400kW peak load.

Thanks.

Isn't an ETS connection still used on freight locos for things like refrigerated containers?

UK freight locos e.g. the cl. 66 don't have any ETS capability. The wagons don't have the wiring for it either.

 

[43096]

Isn't an ETS connection still used on freight locos for things like refrigerated containers?

No. Refrigerated containers have built in refrigeration power supplies - for obvious reasons.

 

[Trainbike46]

I'll get my 'wet finger' out and try...

In 2018, when Rail Ops UK first announced they were ordering ten 93s, they said it was "a deal worth more than £40 million" (see https://www.railmagazine.com/news/n...s-fuels-its-ambitions-with-tri-mode-class-93s ). So £4m per loco at 2018 prices from Stadler. It took till 2021 and Star Capital buying a majority share of of Rail Ops UK by before they had the money to order them. Given what's happened between 2018 and 2021, I suspect the price has increased over that period (UK inflation was about 5%, Spain 3% over that period, so index that £4m to around £4.2m).

In 2012, the value of the DRS order for the first 15 class 68s was estimated at £45m (according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_68#Order_and_production ) - so £3m per loco, 10 years ago for a diesel-only equivalent. I can't find any mention of the value/cost of the ten class 88's ordered later, but I'd be surprised if they were cheaper than the 68s.

For comparison, the original EWS order for 250 cl. 66 in 1996 was worth £375m, so £1.5m per loco. From 1996 to 2021 UK & US inflation was about 1.6x-1.7x, so a 66 would in theory cost about £2.5m in 2021 (and might have cost about £2.1m in 2012, for comparison to the cl. 68 price).

So I suspect (a very wet finger estimate!) that a 93 might be 1.5x to 1.7x the cost of a notional new cl. 66 in 2021.

If anyone has better information on the loco prices I'd be very interested to know, but usually it's hard to find because it's (understandably) pretty commercially sensitive information. The same goes for leasing costs.

Thank you, that gives a good idea!

Sounds like they will be well placed primarily where they can replace 2 other locomotives, such as heavy trains that only need to do low speeds away from the wires that currently would need 2x 66 to have enough power under wired sections

 

[ac6000cw]

Sounds like they will be well placed primarily where they can replace 2 other locomotives, such as heavy trains that only need to do low speeds away from the wires that currently would need 2x 66 to have enough power under wired sections

Are there many trains normally using double-headed 66's (other than maybe standing-in for something else like a 59/60/70 on a heavy bulk freight or 2 x 90's on intermodal)?

 

[Sonik]

I'll get my 'wet finger' out and try...

So I suspect (a very wet finger estimate!) that a 93 might be 1.5x to 1.7x the cost of a notional new cl. 66 in 2021.

The 93s are more expensive to purchase, but capital equipment is a relatively minor cost for FOCs, since the equipment has amortization measured in decades and relatively high utilization. I've seen the ownership cost per mile for a Class 66 quoted around £1.50, that's fractions of a penny per ton/mile hauled.

The dominant costs are staffing and fuel, so I guess ROG thinking is that quicker journeys without traction swaps (as done frequently by FL with their 90s) can significantly reduce staffing costs, and the 93's are much more fuel efficient too.

The battery capacity is 80kWh, so that's 12 minutes (1/5 of an hour) at 400kW peak load.

The diesel is only 900kW. So not best suited to climbing hills off the wires. The battery seems to be for accelerating up to line speed once or twice before recharging.
The real performance benefit will come on AC power, where the 93 will deliver over twice the power of a 66 (4000kW vs 1850kW)

There's some very interesting performance comparisons with other Locos in this presentation by Karl Watts of ROG:

Key takeaways:

• Container trains are not really very heavy because the box payload is limited by the road limit of 40 tons
• On diesel, Class 93 is not far off a Class 68 performance wise, albeit it seems to be geared a bit higher, so it will accelerate faster with a lighter load
• Modern traction controls obviate the need for six axles on all but the heaviest trains

 

[themiller]

Key takeaways:

• Container trains are not really very heavy because the box payload is limited by the road limit of 40 tons

I do remember that the container terminal at Wilton was built there because ICI wanted the ability to load their containers beyond the Road limit at the time. The destination would also need to be somewhere that didn’t need to involve road haulage or a break-bulk centre like Daventry.

 

[43096]

The 93s are more expensive to purchase, but capital equipment is a relatively minor cost for FOCs, since the equipment has amortization measured in decades and relatively high utilization.

The dominant costs are staffing and fuel, so I guess ROG thinking is that quicker journeys without traction swaps (as done frequently by FL with their 90s) can significantly reduce staffing costs, and the 93's are much more fuel efficient too.



There's some very interesting performance comparisons with other Locos in this presentation by Karl Watts of ROG:

Key takeaways:

• Container trains are not really very heavy because the box payload is limited by the road limit of 40 tons
• On diesel, Class 93 is not far off a Class 68 performance wise, albeit it seems to be geared a bit higher, so it will accelerate faster with a lighter load
• Modern traction controls obviate the need for six axles on all but the heaviest trains

The more important takeaway is that this is a presentation by a company desperate for someone to hire these locos. There is going to be a huge amount of ’spin’ put on their capabilities. As yet, there is no real world data to support any of these assertions.

 

[Richard Scott]

Key takeaways:

• Container trains are not really very heavy because the box payload is limited by the road limit of 40 tons
• On diesel, Class 93 is not far off a Class 68 performance wise, albeit it seems to be geared a bit higher, so it will accelerate faster with a lighter load
• Modern traction controls obviate the need for six axles on all but the heaviest trains

Higher gearing results in slower rate of acceleration.

 

[furnessvale]

Key takeaways:

• Container trains are not really very heavy because the box payload is limited by the road limit of 40 tons
• On diesel, Class 93 is not far off a Class 68 performance wise, albeit it seems to be geared a bit higher, so it will accelerate faster with a lighter load
• Modern traction controls obviate the need for six axles on all but the heaviest trains

The gross weight of a current HGV is 44 tonnes, giving a payload of 29-30 tonnes. Having successfully lobbied for longer HGVs, the road haulage industry is now seeking even longer 62 tonnes HGVs, capable of carrying 1 x 40ft plus 1x 20ft container, and is quietly receiving support from the DfT.

Given the correct density of cargo, a 60ft rail container flat could theoretically carry 3 x 20ft containers, each weighing 30 tonnes. This would exceed the ability of the wagon to carry them, which is why 60ft rail wagons are often seen with a 20ft box at each end. Thus the first of those key takeaways is not correct in every case.