Class 93 Tri-mode Loco

[Energy]

ikely 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.

These are expensive units for spot hire...

 

[Charlie Smythe]

These are expensive units for spot hire...

They're expensive locos regardless of what they're used for.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Any idea of the fuel capacity of an 88?

1,800 litres, according to the Combined Volume ( Platform 5 ).

 

[hooverboy]

3% seems a little low to me, although it will depend on the route and the load. A light 1500t intermodal train on a flat route will spend far less time at full power than a 3000t freight on a hilly route. While 3% sounds small, it’s important. Not being able to perform 3% of the time won’t go down well.

What kind of fuel capacity does the 93 have as that will also dictate its usefulness on diesel. I assume it will be the same as an 88 but I don’t know what that is either.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Feb 2021 ==


Why? Unless it’s wired then there is a major power issue.

This is where being able to put the power down on 6 axles instead of 4 helps.
6 axles lowers the axle load, which is good for network rail track access charges due to less rail wear, not so good for tractive effort per axle
Having 50% more contact area improves the tractive effort back again,and also helps with adhesion(resultant forces,coefficients of friction etc)

That combined with an uprated battery and/or engine gives you a lot more options when dealing with adverse rail or environmental conditions.

As for fuel tank capacities etc,I think they will probably be aiming for a proper go-anywhere loco this time.
Correct me if I'm wrong,but cl88 is somewhere around 400 gallons,whereas class 68 is something like 1100. I would envisage them aiming for something like 700-800 ball park figure in order to give a decent range in all operating conditions.

 

[hooverboy]

This is where being able to put the power down on 6 axles instead of 4 helps.
6 axles lowers the axle load, which is good for network rail track access charges due to less rail wear, not so good for tractive effort per axle
Having 50% more contact area improves the tractive effort back again,and also helps with adhesion(resultant forces,coefficients of friction etc)

That combined with an uprated battery and/or engine gives you a lot more options when dealing with adverse rail or environmental conditions.

As for fuel tank capacities etc,I think they will probably be aiming for a proper go-anywhere loco this time.
Correct me if I'm wrong,but cl88 is somewhere around 400 gallons,whereas class 68 is something like 1100. I would envisage them aiming for something like 700-800 ball park figure in order to give a decent range in all operating conditions.

As for not being able to haul as much as a 66, the purpose of these loco's is not meant to be a direct like-for-like comparison.
There is a niche in the market for freight where a 66 is horribly overpowered for the job it is rostered for,and slower into the bargain.

the class 93 is taking aim at the speed and fuel costs bit initially,but I do certainly see a business case for making these as versatile as possible.The initial spec for the diesel hybrid side seems a little light,and the route availability a little too restrictive.DRS are retaining some of their 37's for 5 more years precisely because of their RA.
The procurement cycle from drawing board to on the metals in anger is 3 years.There's certainly an opportunity for ROG to steal a march if they will take the risk.

 

[MikePJ]

Anyone here able to comment or assist;
Reading that the Stadler cl.93 has LTO batteries, does anyone know what standards the battery will have been tested to, and what safety approvals achieved?

A quick comment on battery chemistries. Lithium titanate oxide (LTO) is the safest of the common lithium battery chemistries - it has a much lower energy density than the type of battery used in mobile phones, so it's storing a lot less energy per unit volume than other types. Its main advantage besides safety is that it will accept very high currents both for charging and discharging, which makes it ideal for hybrid powertrains as lots of current is available when required to start the train, and the battery will recharge quickly once the diesel engine has spare capacity to top it up. This type of battery is already used in some electric cars, notably a Japanese version of the Mitsubishi i-MIEV. I would expect that Stadler are working with an automotive battery supplier (Saft of France would be an obvious candidate - they are already in the rail market) and I would expect them to apply automotive standards of certification.

 

[hooverboy]

A quick comment on battery chemistries. Lithium titanate oxide (LTO) is the safest of the common lithium battery chemistries - it has a much lower energy density than the type of battery used in mobile phones, so it's storing a lot less energy per unit volume than other types. Its main advantage besides safety is that it will accept very high currents both for charging and discharging, which makes it ideal for hybrid powertrains as lots of current is available when required to start the train, and the battery will recharge quickly once the diesel engine has spare capacity to top it up. This type of battery is already used in some electric cars, notably a Japanese version of the Mitsubishi i-MIEV. I would expect that Stadler are working with an automotive battery supplier (Saft of France would be an obvious candidate - they are already in the rail market) and I would expect them to apply automotive standards of certification.

LTO battery is present technology.There may well be improvements or iterations in the process which will allow much better energy density, combined with the ability to fast charge.At some point in the not too distant future, that technology may evolve further to graphene based or vanadium flow batteries.The good news here is that particular power pack should just be a drop-in replacement.Potentially such improvements could also omit the need for a cooling/preheat solution for stability over temperature.

 

[hooverboy]

They're expensive locos regardless of what they're used for.

It's a good job that interest rates are so low for finance/re-finance at the moment.
It would be a lot more difficult to make such a purchase if we were in an inflationary plus high interest rate like the 1970's

 

[Bald Rick]

There's certainly an opportunity for ROG to steal a march if they will take the risk.

That’s quite an “in” joke for those who know the ROG management


Meanwhile, the latest Modern Railways plopped though the letterbox this morning, and Mr Walmsley has an article on these machines. Like me, he sees this as a game changer. Two things he points out, having spoken to ‘sources’:

1) their total running cost has been modelled as one third that of a 66
2) initial running time modelling shows that it can reduce the Felixstowe - Mossend time by 3 hours. Sure it might lose a few minutes on the branch, but it more than makes up for it elsewhere.

With those numbers, it’s quite possible we’ll see them at Felixstowe.

 

[furnessvale]

That’s quite an “in” joke for those who know the ROG management


Meanwhile, the latest Modern Railways plopped though the letterbox this morning, and Mr Walmsley has an article on these machines. Like me, he sees this as a game changer. Two things he points out, having spoken to ‘sources’:

1) their total running cost has been modelled as one third that of a 66
2) initial running time modelling shows that it can reduce the Felixstowe - Mossend time by 3 hours. Sure it might lose a few minutes on the branch, but it more than makes up for it elsewhere.

With those numbers, it’s quite possible we’ll see them at Felixstowe.

Genuine question. Is the Felixstowe-Mossend model via London or cross country?

 

[Domh245]

1) their total running cost has been modelled as one third that of a 66
2) initial running time modelling shows that it can reduce the Felixstowe - Mossend time by 3 hours. Sure it might lose a few minutes on the branch, but it more than makes up for it elsewhere.

I suppose running on electricity will make up the bulk of that saving?

The time saving is surely dependant on someone developing (or perhaps more accurately approving to run on NR) 100mph capable container flats? I struggle to see how it makes up 3 hours on acceleration alone?

 

[ABB125]

I suppose running on electricity will make up the bulk of that saving?

The time saving is surely dependant on someone developing (or perhaps more accurately approving to run on NR) 100mph capable container flats? I struggle to see how it makes up 3 hours on acceleration alone?

Possibly allows for better pathing, resulting in much less time stuck in a loop?

 

[43096]

With those numbers, it’s quite possible we’ll see them at Felixstowe.

Presumably that assumes that ROG actually have some work down there, or that someone else orders some.

 

[Bald Rick]

Genuine question. Is the Felixstowe-Mossend model via London or cross country?

London

I suppose running on electricity will make up the bulk of that saving?

The time saving is surely dependant on someone developing (or perhaps more accurately approving to run on NR) 100mph capable container flats? I struggle to see how it makes up 3 hours on acceleration alone?

Aha. It’s not just about acceleration. It is two other critical factors:

Speed up the hills. An electric can get up Beattock or Shap at 50mph+, where a 66 may only manage 15-20. That’s worth several minutes, and of course applies to almost any hill of note (Brentwood bank on the GE has several minutes differential between diesel and electric).

Even more important, is the combined effect of better acceleration and better speed up the hills is that the freight can keep in front of passenger trains, and therefore needs looping less frequently. Each looping will cost 10-15 minutes, sometimes more. There’s services in the timetable now looped three times between Carlisle and Glasgow, costing an hour and a half compared to a clear run.

Add that all together and 3 hours doesn’t sound too far fetched.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Feb 2021 ==

Presumably that assumes that ROG actually have some work down there, or that someone else orders some.

It’s not beyond the realms of possibility that they rent them out ‘power by the hour’ to FL, GB, DB etc.

 

[ABB125]

It's not beyond the realms of possibility that they rent them out ‘power by the hour’ to FL, GB, DB etc.

Especially if they order more!

 

[hst43102]

Speed up the hills. An electric can get up Beattock or Shap at 50mph+, where a 66 may only manage 15-20. That’s worth several minutes, and of course applies to almost any hill of note (Brentwood bank on the GE has several minutes differential between diesel and electric).

One thought. If all freights can get over Beattock/Shap/etc at 50mph+, will this free up a significant more paths for increased freight/express passenger?

 

[Nottingham59]

will this free up a significant more paths for increased freight/express passenger

Yes. That's the whole point. The only reason we still have 66s plodding up gradients on the WCML is that they are not charged to cover the passenger paths they consume.

 

[Wyrleybart]

It’s not beyond the realms of possibility that they rent them out ‘power by the hour’ to FL, GB, DB etc.

"43096" raises the very valid point. Many of us were thinking of the class 93 as the loco DRS were rumoured to be acquiring aeveral years ago, and DRS's business is predominantly freight - certainly more recently.

The ROG class 93 is undoubtedly a step up in power compared to the DRS class 88 when in diesel, but noone should kid themselves that the ROG class 93 will be a heavy duty lugger on diesel, for anything other than moving away from a standstill using the battery boost.

But more importantly, unless ROG start picking up regular timetabled freight work I think we are unlikely to see the ROG 93s working heavy intermodal trains. Obviously if units 011-030 and maybe onwards, are built for hire or sale to other FOCs that would be a different matter. It would be interesting to see how a 93 would cope on diesel with an average intermodal train of say 1600 tonnes. The relatively low speed Felixstowe branch probably wouldn't be an issue, and the 93 could raise the pan from Ipswich / Bacon factory curve to Haughley Jn, then relatively sedate running over to Ely and on to Peterborough. More diesel working via the Joint line or over to Nuneaton but it remains to be seen what kind of output could be obtained. Clearly ROG know because of their investment in the locos. I am not sure the ROG class 93 will leave any heavy plodders without work.

 

[Bald Rick]

But more importantly, unless ROG start picking up regular timetabled freight work I think we are unlikely to see the ROG 93s working heavy intermodal trains. Obviously if units 011-030 and maybe onwards, are built for hire or sale to other FOCs that would be a different matter. It would be interesting to see how a 93 would cope on diesel with an average intermodal train of say 1600 tonnes. The relatively low speed Felixstowe branch probably wouldn't be an issue, and the 93 could raise the pan from Ipswich / Bacon factory curve to Haughley Jn, then relatively sedate running over to Ely and on to Peterborough. More diesel working via the Joint line or over to Nuneaton but it remains to be seen what kind of output could be obtained. Clearly ROG know because of their investment in the locos. I am not sure the ROG class 93 will leave any heavy plodders without work.

I really can’t see it working Haughley - Peterborough, capacity is important there too, and I’m not sure having the equivalent of a Class 25 pulling 1300t (a 93 on diesel only) will be much use for long stretches.

Felixstowe to Ipswich will be ok, particularly at quieter times. Diesel + battery is about the same as a Class 37, and there’s about 10mins worth of battery at full power, so it will get up to 30mph pretty quickly and then take longer to get to 50, and then probably keep going at 50ish on diesel only. Once on the main line under the wires it will get away smartly.

 

[43096]

I really can’t see it working Haughley - Peterborough, capacity is important there too, and I’m not sure having the equivalent of a Class 25 pulling 1300t (a 93 on diesel only) will be much use for long stretches.

Felixstowe to Ipswich will be ok, particularly at quieter times. Diesel + battery is about the same as a Class 37, and there’s about 10mins worth of battery at full power, so it will get up to 30mph pretty quickly and then take longer to get to 50, and then probably keep going at 50ish on diesel only. Once on the main line under the wires it will get away smartly.

I'm not convinced Felixstowe is viable. Even back in late BR days there was an issue with liners out of Felixstowe such that they needed pairs of 37s (and later pairs of 47s) and were early recipients of 57s and 66s. A single 93 really isn't going to cut it given the volume of traffic (and not forgetting the hourly passenger service), as it is far busier than it used to be - we really can't afford to have something slower out of the port. Now if the plan was to fully double the line and electrify (which should be the objective), the 93s could shunt their trains at the port and then shift them out.

 

[GLC]

This might be a silly question, but is there the energy capacity to run more freight trains using the OHLE? I’m only wondering as there are these issues around TPE having to run on diesel between Edinburgh and Newcastle or thereabouts.

 

[furnessvale]

Yes. That's the whole point. The only reason we still have 66s plodding up gradients on the WCML is that they are not charged to cover the passenger paths they consume.

Speaking as a freight man, perhaps passengers should be charged to cover the fact that their excessive speed forces freights to loop unnecessarily!

I'll get my coat!

 

[birchesgreen]

Very good article about the 93 in the latest Modern Railways, they are very positive on it.

 

[Peter Sarf]

If a 93 is not powerful enough away from the wires then how about double heading ?. If the running costs are 1/3 those of a diesel loco then 2/3 of a diesel loco is still a saving.

 

[HSTEd]

The time saving is surely dependant on someone developing (or perhaps more accurately approving to run on NR) 100mph capable container flats? I struggle to see how it makes up 3 hours on acceleration alone?

Doesn't it take about 30 minutes for a diesel hauled freight train to ascend Shap?

 

[berwicksfinest]

I really can’t see it working Haughley - Peterborough, capacity is important there too, and I’m not sure having the equivalent of a Class 25 pulling 1300t (a 93 on diesel only) will be much use for long stretches.

Felixstowe to Ipswich will be ok, particularly at quieter times. Diesel + battery is about the same as a Class 37, and there’s about 10mins worth of battery at full power, so it will get up to 30mph pretty quickly and then take longer to get to 50, and then probably keep going at 50ish on diesel only. Once on the main line under the wires it will get away smartly.

This all day long.

As one of our staple routes, Bacon Curve through to Felixstowe is just as intensively used !! Route being 35mph to Derby Road, and 50 Derby road to Nacton then 60. Going to Felixstowe pretty much down hill shouldn't see too much hassle, to ipswich a pretty long slog, I can easily get up to 50 mph with our liner with a trailing of about 1285 tonnes. I really cannot see a 93 matching that with dry rail let alone slippery.

Haughley - Peterbough is up hill, down dale Haughley to Ely, I cannot again see a 93 matching a 66. Ely to Peterborough pretty flat and possibly a match, but a 93 s batteries would be pretty much flat i assume by then

 

[Mollman]

This might be a silly question, but is there the energy capacity to run more freight trains using the OHLE? I’m only wondering as there are these issues around TPE having to run on diesel between Edinburgh and Newcastle or thereabouts.

Depends on which route. Most of the talk is about WCML which appears to have the capacity still. TPEs issue is on the ECML where power upgrades are needed. This might be partly to do with thoughts at time of electrification. On the WCML practically everything seemed to be electric hauled even if this meant changing locos at Preston, Carlisle, Crewe etc. With ECML electrification it was done on the cheap with the view that a maximum of only two electric trains an hour would be operating on the section north of Newcastle.

 

[Bald Rick]

This might be a silly question, but is there the energy capacity to run more freight trains using the OHLE? I’m only wondering as there are these issues around TPE having to run on diesel between Edinburgh and Newcastle or thereabouts.

There’s plenty spare on the WCML overnight, which is when much of this might run. The GEML is tighter, but again these won’t be running in the peak when power draw is highest, and west of Shenfield the power has been upgraded (significantly) for Crossrail.

 

[Class 170101]

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

In respect of Pan up on the move that also depends on NR. I seem to recall certain restrictions on GWML for this - the OLE was tightened to accommodate the force of the pan raising in certain areas. For High Speed Coating like GEML it was styop to raise Pantogrpah when clear of isolated section.

Speed up the hills. An electric can get up Beattock or Shap at 50mph+, where a 66 may only manage 15-20. That’s worth several minutes, and of course applies to almost any hill of note (Brentwood bank on the GE has several minutes differential between diesel and electric).

20 to 30mph over the top at Brentwood Bank, for diesels trailing 1600 tonnes, if you asre lucky.

This might be a silly question, but is there the energy capacity to run more freight trains using the OHLE? I’m only wondering as there are these issues around TPE having to run on diesel between Edinburgh and Newcastle or thereabouts.

See @Bald Rick's comment below but I don't think there are many Freightliners between Newcastle and Edinburgh?

There’s plenty spare on the WCML overnight, which is when much of this might run. The GEML is tighter, but again these won’t be running in the peak when power draw is highest, and west of Shenfield the power has been upgraded (significantly) for Crossrail.

2x Class 90s are six motors (out of eight) apparently to reduce power draw.

Is Shenfield to Liverpool Street actually finished yet? Seems to be a ridiculous number of blocks still?

 

[Bald Rick]

Is Shenfield to Liverpool Street actually finished yet? Seems to be a ridiculous number of blocks still?

The power is just about done, but doesn’t need much in the way of blocks anyway. The OLE just has a few bits to do - big block at Easter, IIRC for work at Stratford and Manor Park. Also track tenewal on the Southend Road.