Class 93 Tri-mode Loco

[Charlie Smythe]

It didn’t used to be of course. It will be interesting to see what diesel+battery can do in terms of running times on the branch.

Fall way short I would imagine.

Eveyroje says the the 93 will perform with its modern electronics, clever WSP system and all the rest of it, but all that kit will not make up for a 1500hp (45%) deficit. On an electrified route, providing adhesion is there the 93 will best a 66 easily, but on wet rail or on a diesel route, the 66 will win.

 

[Bald Rick]

Fall way short I would imagine.

Eveyroje says the the 93 will perform with its modern electronics, clever WSP system and all the rest of it, but all that kit will not make up for a 1500hp (45%) deficit. On an electrified route, providing adhesion is there the 93 will best a 66 easily, but on wet rail or on a diesel route, the 66 will win.

I’m not so sure. I’m no traction engineer, but if the diesel+battery (c1.3MW) can accelerate the train to, say, 30 mph as quickly as a 66, then that’s most of the battle won on that line. Personally I don’t think they will be used to Felixstowe much, but you never know.

 

[Richard Scott]

Fall way short I would imagine.

Eveyroje says the the 93 will perform with its modern electronics, clever WSP system and all the rest of it, but all that kit will not make up for a 1500hp (45%) deficit. On an electrified route, providing adhesion is there the 93 will best a 66 easily, but on wet rail or on a diesel route, the 66 will win.

I would imagine on a wet rail they're still pretty much a match for a 66. Harder to spin an axle on an AC drive loco. Know their nominal tractive effort is lower than a 66 but in real world bet it's easily capable of moving a 1200t train with ease even if rail is wet.

 

[Roger B]

Have a look at the Clayton products which have recently been ordered and which some sources are classifying as class 18. Pretty sure there are 25kV and battery versions planned.

Hadn't heard of this. Who's ordered what, and when are they likely to be delivered? (OK, so a bit OT: Mods - subject for a new thread?)

 

[Wyrleybart]

Hadn't heard of this. Who's ordered what, and when are they likely to be delivered? (OK, so a bit OT: Mods - subject for a new thread?)

Apologies for the advertising on the site but the class are definitely making it to the rolling stock library for registry on Network Rail.

Clayton Equipment's CBD90s gain RSL classification

World of Railways is the UKs biggest Railway themed website, incorporating British Railway Modelling, Garden Rail, Narrow Gauge World & Traction

www.world-of-railways.co.uk

Apologies Mods

 

[Charlie Smythe]

I’m not so sure. I’m no traction engineer, but if the diesel+battery (c1.3MW) can accelerate the train to, say, 30 mph as quickly as a 66, then that’s most of the battle won on that line. Personally I don’t think they will be used to Felixstowe much, but you never know.

How will it manage that? The 66 has an advantage in all the key areas when it comes to accelerating to 30mph. The 66 has a hp, TE and weight advantage over the 93.

I would imagine on a wet rail they're still pretty much a match for a 66. Harder to spin an axle on an AC drive loco. Know their nominal tractive effort is lower than a 66 but in real world bet it's easily capable of moving a 1200t train with ease even if rail is wet.

I don’t know about that. Weight and 6 contact points counts for a lot.

 

[Nottingham59]

subject for a new thread?

I've started a new thread for the Clayton CBD90 here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/clayton-cbd90-battery-diesel-shunter.214271/

 

[TRAX]

How will it manage that? The 66 has an advantage in all the key areas when it comes to accelerating to 30mph. The 66 has a hp, TE and weight advantage over the 93.


I don’t know about that. Weight and 6 contact points counts for a lot.

AC drives are indeed much less prone to slipping and overheating compared to DC drives, hence the better tractive capabilities of AC drives and their rise in popularity recently.

 

[HSTEd]

With 1800hp at best? Seems optimistic to me, especially if you throw in some gradients.

Welcome to the world of modern power electronics and traction controllers.

Ultimately the 66s are now 25 years out of date.

 

[Richard Scott]

Welcome to the world of modern power electronics and traction controllers.

Ultimately the 66s are now 25 years out of date.

I think they were out of date when built!

 

[Charlie Smythe]

Welcome to the world of modern power electronics and traction controllers.

Ultimately the 66s are now 25 years out of date.

While I get that they’re 25 years old (comparatively to a 37 or 47) but that doesn’t mean that they cannot beat a 93.

AC drives are indeed much less prone to slipping and overheating compared to DC drives, hence the better tractive capabilities of AC drives and their rise in popularity recently.

True. But I don’t see how you can make up for a lost 35 tonnes and also two less contact points.

 

[HSTEd]

While I get that they’re 25 years old (comparatively to a 37 or 47) but that doesn’t mean that they cannot beat a 93.


True. But I don’t see how you can make up for a lost 35 tonnes and also two less contact points.

A modern locomotive with AC traction drives can manage starting tractive effort about 46% of it's weight. [SD70ACe-T4 with 200klbf on 428klb of weight, sorry for US units]

The starting tractive effort of a Class 66 is ~409kN, which implies a weight of ~889kN to achieve that now.
889kN is 90,650kgf - so a weight of a locomotive massing about 90 tonnes.

 

[Nottingham59]

make up for a lost 35 tonnes and also two less contact

You can't. That's why the Class 66 has a starting tractive effort of 409kN, and the Class 93 will be similar to a Class 88 which has only 317kN (according to Wikipedia). So if you need that much pulling force then use a 66. If you need speed over Shap or Beattock or up the Lickey incline, and the route from the port to the electrified network is fairly flat, then use the Class 93.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

You can't. That's why the Class 66 has a starting tractive effort of 409kN, and the Class 93 will be similar to a Class 88 which has only 317kN (according to Wikipedia). So if you need that much pulling force then use a 66. If you need speed over Shap or Beattock or up the Lickey incline, and the route from the port to the electrified network is fairly flat, then use the Class 93.

If the route is electrified then the 93 is an obvious choice, but if it’s not and you’re just using a 93 for the sake of using it, then that’s just pointless.

For the vast majority of freight slows you cannot beat a 66.

 

[Richard Scott]

If the route is electrified then the 93 is an obvious choice, but if it’s not and you’re just using a 93 for the sake of using it, then that’s just pointless.

For the vast majority of freight slows you cannot beat a 66.

Don't see a 93 being used just for sake of it. If majority of route is diesel then 66 or 68 still make sense but when majority of route electrified then 93 comes into its own. How many trains run with 66s under the wires for mile after mile. Quite a few, I expect, which shouldn't be happening.

 

[Domh245]

For the vast majority of freight slows you cannot beat a 66.

I very much doubt that ROG are going after traditional "slow freights" - there's enough competition for those as it is

 

[43096]

I’m amazed at all these suggestions for freight use, when ROG has around 0% of the mainstream freight market. They need some contracts first, before they get to (for example) shift containers out of Felixstowe.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

I’m amazed at all these suggestions for freight use, when ROG has around 0% of the mainstream freight market. They need some contracts first, before they get to (for example) shift containers out of Felixstowe.

They already have the contracts, or at least I hope they do. Buying locos at £4m a pop with nothing to pay for them sounds like a reciepe for disaster. ROG will have the contracts to support these locos, but they have wisely not made them public as yet.

Don't see a 93 being used just for sake of it. If majority of route is diesel then 66 or 68 still make sense but when majority of route electrified then 93 comes into its own. How many trains run with 66s under the wires for mile after mile. Quite a few, I expect, which shouldn't be happening.

It shouldn't but it is.

While the 93 makes sense if the route is mostly electrified, it does still need to perform on the bits that are not. If 90% of the route is under the wires then by all means use the 93 but ONLY if the 93 can handle the train on the other 10%, else it just won't work.

 

[Richard Scott]

It shouldn't but it is.

While the 93 makes sense if the route is mostly electrified, it does still need to perform on the bits that are not. If 90% of the route is under the wires then by all means use the 93 but ONLY if the 93 can handle the train on the other 10%, else it just won't work.

Which I'm sure it will be able to otherwise there's be no point to it. Sure the 10% won't be 125mph diesel only route. Admittedly severe inclines may cause a problem but where are any that are on routes like that? Sure for majority of work it'll be fine. Unlikely aiming it at tackling Devon banks as far too far from any wires.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

Which I'm sure it will be able to otherwise there's be no point to it. Sure the 10% won't be 125mph diesel only route. Admittedly severe inclines may cause a problem but where are any that are on routes like that? Sure for majority of work it'll be fine. Unlikely aiming it at tackling Devon banks as far too far from any wires.

Not so much about the gradients, but more about keeping to time from stops so it doesn't block other trains.

As for the Devon Banks, only the sleeper would need dragging over there and maybe a test train but both are very light.

 

[Richard Scott]

Not so much about the gradients, but more about keeping to time from stops so it doesn't block other trains.

As for the Devon Banks, only the sleeper would need dragging over there and maybe a test train but both are very light.

I know, which why a while back asked if there were any long high speed diesel stretches of two track line where this would be a problem? Apart from West of England line I couldn't think of any.

 

[Bald Rick]

While the 93 makes sense if the route is mostly electrified, it does still need to perform on the bits that are not. If 90% of the route is under the wires then by all means use the 93 but ONLY if the 93 can handle the train on the other 10%, else it just won't work.

Being devil’s advocate, the issue there is the definition of ‘handle’. There’s no doubt a 93 could handle trains on the Felixstowe branch, they’d just be a couple of minutes slower on the branch itself. But they’d also be quicker on all the electrified lines, which may be of significant benefit on the GEML, NLL and WCML.

Nevertheless, I think Felixstowe is unlikely (although possible); more likely (if they are to be used on intermodal) is London Gateway to Trafford Park / Hams Hall / Coatbridge, maybe even Lawley St.

They already have the contracts, or at least I hope they do. Buying locos at £4m a pop with nothing to pay for them sounds like a reciepe for disaster

Have they actually bought them outright? The press release says the contract is for ‘supply’ of the locos, which suggests leasing.

 

[martin2345uk]

Can locos like this change from diesel/battery to pantograph while on the move, or do they need to stop to do that?

 

[Bald Rick]

Can locos like this change from diesel/battery to pantograph while on the move, or do they need to stop to do that?

They will be able to, but whether they do or not will be up to the ROG operations manual.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

I know, which why a while back asked if there were any long high speed diesel stretches of two track line where this would be a problem? Apart from West of England line I couldn't think of any.

Doesn't need to be high speed. If the route has intensive timetable then a train that is x number of minutes slower over x number of miles due to slow acceleration could be an issue.

Being devil’s advocate, the issue there is the definition of ‘handle’. There’s no doubt a 93 could handle trains on the Felixstowe branch, they’d just be a couple of minutes slower on the branch itself. But they’d also be quicker on all the electrified lines, which may be of significant benefit on the GEML, NLL and WCML.

Nevertheless, I think Felixstowe is unlikely (although possible); more likely (if they are to be used on intermodal) is London Gateway to Trafford Park / Hams Hall / Coatbridge, maybe even Lawley St.





Have they actually bought them outright? The press release says the contract is for ‘supply’ of the locos, which suggests leasing.

I agree, there is no doubt that it could handle trains on the Felixstowe branch, but the Felixstowe branch is a tiny part of the network and there are plenty of places where a 93 could come unstuck.

As for the leave vs buying, they are leasing them I believe but my point still stands. No one is going to sign a supply lease for trains that they don't have work for, especially not at 4m a loco.

 

[43096]

No one is going to sign a supply lease for trains that they don't have work for, especially not at 4m a loco.

DRS did...

 

[Bald Rick]

I agree, there is no doubt that it could handle trains on the Felixstowe branch, but the Felixstowe branch is a tiny part of the network and there are plenty of places where a 93 could come unstuck.

As for the leave vs buying, they are leasing them I believe but my point still stands. No one is going to sign a supply lease for trains that they don't have work for, especially not at 4m a loco.

No doubt they will have some work lined up. Probably not for all of them, though.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

No doubt they will have some work lined up. Probably not for all of them, though.

The question is, what is that work...

Likely spot hiring for charter trains, running test trains, cover work for FTOC's and also stock movements. Light freight like and the CNR are also options.

 

[Richard Scott]

The question is, what is that work...

Likely spot hiring for charter trains, running test trains, cover work for FTOC's and also stock movements. Light freight like and the CNR are also options.

Suppose we'll have to wait and see. Be interesting to see how they do perform both on electric (assume similar to an 88) and diesel.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

Suppose we'll have to wait and see. Be interesting to see how they do perform both on electric (assume similar to an 88) and diesel.

Any idea of the fuel capacity of an 88? I assume the 93 will be the same as the 88. What is the 88's diesel range?