I can only think using a 93 will help streamline operations at Ipswich by removing the need for a locomotive change. The batteries and diesel might be enough to get the train up to line speed on the Felixstowe branch - it is hardly the West Coast Main Line.
I think it is more an exasperation at the lack of future electrification plans. We shouldn't need the 93 but with no likelihood of Felixstowe - Ipswich / Birmingham, Basingstoke - Nuneaton or Peterborough - Lincoln - Doncaster being electrified in the next 10 years we need something to reduce diesels under the wires.
GBRf's Class 99 is what is needed for that job. 6.25MW under the wires, 1.8MW (Type 4 equivalent) diesel capability and 500kN starting tractive effort. That's a proper freight hauler.
You're right of course. I had forgotten the single track. But what I said does apply to branch lines to ports like London Gateway, where time taken on the unelectrified section really does not matter.
The problem is slow freight trains on the busiest lines in the country lacking power and acceleration, and thereby eating capacity needed for passenger services.
It's two 40kWh batteries, so a theoretical 12 mins at 400kW. That equals the kinetic energy of a 300 ton passenger train at 96mph. Or a 1000t intermodal at 55mph.
Does DRS have a very high utilisation rate for its other locos?
does that mean it could haul a bunch of MK5s from Oxenholme to Windermere and back?
You are really grasping at straws in trying to argue the 93s are the loco everybody is looking for.
What a strange reply. Have you seen the business case? Revenue-earning service of any type is to be welcomed to see a return o the investment. If not I'm sure the shareholders will have something to say.
OK, I'll spell it out for you. You claim there is obviously a compelling business case. Are you suggesting this business case included a totally bizarre suggestion of using them on Windermere shuttles? Are you suggesting there is more than a 0.000001% possibility of Northern using 93s and Mk 5s on Windermere services? If not then it is fairly obvious you are just making up possible uses for them, even if those possible uses will never happen or ever be considered.
Alternative view: pesky passenger trains screwing up freight trains (and soaking up subsidy money like a sponge).
)
It's interesting to compare the Class 88s and the Class 93s.
Yep. Plus battery and a 900kW diesel engine
Not quite. A 93 much has less power on electric than a 90 (4.0MW vs 5.86MW) even an 86 is better but the 93 has diesel, battery and better traction electronics.
Agreed, the 99 is the sensible initial benchmark for future freight rather than the 93 but the 99 could be improved upon.
I understood the 93 is going to have 4.6MW, at the rail, I think.
In short term "Boost" mode before it gets too hot. 4.0 in non boost mode. Either 22% (boost) or 32% (non-boost) lower than a 90 at the rail.
That makes sense. Thank you
How the ratings are defined are different for both so a direct comparison isn't easy. The peak rating of the 90 is also speed dependent.
The 90 continuous rating on wikipedia etc. assumes it is in the much less efficient weak field mode which the 90s operates in from ~85-110mph which isn't relevant to freight services operating at up to 75mph. (Which is also why you haven't seen the 90s regeared for freight use as this would lower the weak field threshold to below the max freight operating speed, which is unhelpful overall at higher freight speeds.)
Anything using London Gateway.
Why the potential problem with northbound runs?
Lickey incline (Bromsgrove). However it is now electrified, so theoretically no problems (assuming that the power supply can handle it, and power changeover at speed is permitted)
That's my theory too. I'm also not 100% sure on the Camp Hill Line's gradients (which, while not as extreme as the Lickey, could be too long/stiff for battery alone).
