Class 93 Tri-mode Loco

[BRX]

That would be an element, but the sheer cost or additional maintenance to 100mph capable wagons compared to the current 75mph fleet has to be a factor, and I cannot see any customers shelling out considerably more for a bit of extra speed which would not benefit them, as I assume the intermodal boxes have spent weeks on ships up until the that point, so an extra two hours on a freight train is neither here nor there to the shippers.

I don't think that's the point of being able to run them faster, it's to do with fitting in paths amongst higher speed passenger services isn't it?

 

[92002]

The original plan was to paid the 93s with a new generation of intermodal flats able to run on mainlines at 100mph. But those never appeared. Can't say I'm surprised - I don't see how they'd pass a safety case running intermodals past open platforms at that speed on the WCML. The buffeting from the slipstream is pretty fierce even at 75mph, or whatever the current limit is.

Think your talking about Kinetic envelope, the force of a Train passing. That's why they have yellow lines on the platform. The spped limit on the WCML slow line is 100mph.

No real need for new intetmodal flats if u
y0our quick the 325s are off lease and heading to Newport for srapping if your quick. Also passed for both WCML and ECML.

 

[hooverboy]

I don't think that's the point of being able to run them faster, it's to do with fitting in paths amongst higher speed passenger services isn't it?

Well 100mph intermodals aren't happening,express workings at 110mph in hybrid mode is a pipe dream unless stupidly lightly loaded, they have a much higher RA than a 37,and the overall power isn't a great deal better than an 88.

I suppose it does have a use case in being quite a bit more effective at "last mile" than 88's are, but the 110mph rating really is now unneccesary.Re-geared to 90 might make a touch more sense,that way it's more of a dedicated mixed use loco.
The network really is screaming out for a "go-anywhere" low axle load loco though ,so RA5 of some description ,to replace the 20's and 37's properly is really what's called for.

 

[Nottingham59]

I don't think that's the point of being able to run them faster, it's to do with fitting in paths amongst higher speed passenger services isn't it?

That's what ROG said at the time.

See https://www.railengineer.co.uk/re-engineering-rail-freight/

"Another problem with freight traffic is its slow speed. When Freightliners (the wagons, not the company) were introduced in 1965, they ran at a maximum speed of 75mph, which was comparable with the speed of passenger trains of the time. Yet container trains and Class 66 locomotives still run at a 75mph maximum speed today. Pathing freight trains running on a busy rail network, on which passenger trains run at 100 or 125mph, is problematic. The rail network could accommodate more freight if it could run at higher speeds."

 

[43096]

Think your talking about Kinetic envelope, the force of a Train passing. That's why they have yellow lines on the platform. The spped limit on the WCML slow line is 100mph.

No real need for new intetmodal flats if u
y0our quick the 325s are off lease and heading to Newport for srapping if your quick. Also passed for both WCML and ECML.

The 325s are not off lease, as they were directly owned by Royal Mail.

 

[Speed43125]

What effect has the change in spot electricity prices had on the freight market? Perhaps prospective customers have now walked away given the cost basis for running these tri-mode services has changed?

 

[cj_1985]

Could be mistaken, but I always thought that when a new fleet were ordered, and being commisioned/tested for mainline use... that the commissioning runs were managed by the manufacturers as the loco/unit technically remained the manufacturers until fully commissioned and signed off.... this has generally meant the testing etc is done over a short period as the manufacturers want the loco/unit off their books (as others have said).

In the case of the 93s, ROG seem to be, unusually, handling this, and dragging their feet... surely not just about not having someone to hire them to?

 

[Trainman40083]

What effect has the change in spot electricity prices had on the freight market? Perhaps prospective customers have now walked away given the cost basis for running these tri-mode services has changed?

I guess that depends upon the terms of the Network Rail contract for electricity used for OHLE. Doubt it is done on a spot basis. Do freight and passenger operators have access to the same terms?

 

[Skymonster]

With eight of these locomotives sitting doing nothing in Spain and two doing likewise in the UK, I think we now have to assume that Stadler is taking some of the risk with this project. Had the contract required payments on completion of construction, on handover to ROG, or on UK acceptance, it seems likely the manufacturer would have been much more aggressive in pushing to get the vehicles moved to the UK and approved for use on the network. And would be demanding payment by now, but with ten expensive locos sitting idle that would surely put ROG in a pretty parlous financial situation.

Sure Stadler could just be sucking up the costs / delay, accepting there’s not much can be done other than wait if there’s no work for the 93s, but if that was the case I suspect the firm would be trying to re-market them by now.

 

[800001]

With eight of these locomotives sitting doing nothing in Spain and two doing likewise in the UK, I think we now have to assume that Stadler is taking some of the risk with this project. Had the contract required payments on completion of construction, on handover to ROG, or on UK acceptance, it seems likely the manufacturer would have been much more aggressive in pushing to get the vehicles moved to the UK and approved for use on the network. And would be demanding payment by now, but with ten expensive locos sitting idle that would surely put ROG in a pretty parlous financial situation.

Sure Stadler could just be sucking up the costs / delay, accepting there’s not much can be done other than wait if there’s no work for the 93s, but if that was the case I suspect the firm would be trying to re-market them by now.

The top boss at ROG had been very active on LinkedIn about the 93s when they arrived, were sat at Worksop and when doing tests at Dalby…….however nothing in over a month.

 

[Bertie the bus]

It has been clear for some time they have got no work for them. I’ve re-read the press release they put out when 93001 arrived and they bizarrely claimed 93001 – 93005 would be in ROG green livery but 93006 – 93010 wouldn’t in order to leave options open for operators. So they obviously thought they would be able to sub-lease 5 of them. Apart from the Stirling – London OAO stating they would use 93s for a time I can’t imagine anybody else being the slightest bit interested and the Stirling – London option is no more as all the spare Mk 4’s have been scrapped and IIRC they now intend to use Voyagers if it ever gets off the ground.

If you look at that press release, basically nothing they said has happened with the exception of 93001 initially being based at Worksop but even then they claimed it would move elsewhere by April this year.

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

 

[Nottingham59]

ROG claimed that the 93 would have running costs very much less than a 66 - with lower track access charges and much greater fuel efficiency. If that is indeed the case, then the 93 should have a role hauling light intermodal loads on the WCML and ECML instead of 66s.

With a tractive effort of 290kN, they should be able to haul 1000 tonne intermodals over Shap and Beattock (1 in 80, I think) with at least 100% safety margin. But that depends on whether the 93 performance is up to specification. I'm surprised that so far we have not seen test runs with freight loads over the hills.

 

[Bertie the bus]

ROG claimed that the 93 would have running costs very much less than a 66 - with lower track access charges and much greater fuel efficiency. If that is indeed the case, then the 93 should have a role hauling light intermodal loads on the WCML and ECML instead of 66s.

If you mean by another operator then what about the difference in lease charges between a 20 - 25 year old 66 and a brand new 93 or the complexities of maintenance or the fact they would only have 5 of them? If other FOCs want new bi or tri modes then, like GBRf, they would buy/lease their own superior loco's and they wouldn't order 5 of them.

 

[LUYMun]

the Stirling – London option is no more as all the spare Mk 4’s have been scrapped

Well that's a bugger.

 

[Bald Rick]

The original plan was to paid the 93s with a new generation of intermodal flats able to run on mainlines at 100mph.

That's what ROG said at the time.

See https://www.railengineer.co.uk/re-engineering-rail-freight/

Read it carefully. Faster intermodals was only ever a scenario being explored. It certainly wasn‘t why the 93s were bought, or the plan for them to be used as such.

 

[92002]

Well that's a bugger.

There are of course a few sets of Mark 5 daytime coaches looking for a home.

 

[Nottingham59]

Read it carefully. Faster intermodals was only ever a scenario being explored. It certainly wasn‘t why the 93s were bought, or the plan for them to be used as such.

Yes. But the press release at the time (14 Jan 2021) stressed freight over passenger:

. The advanced locomotives will significantly reduce CO2
emissions for both rail freight as well as potential passenger transport services

and highlighted the role of the Orion sub-division

Orion is a provider of fast-growing, high speed logistics and express freight.

https://railoperations.sharepoint.com/sites/MediaStrategy/Shared%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx?id=%2Fsites%2FMediaStrategy%2FShared%20Documents%2FPress%20Releases%2F2021%5F0114%5Fmedia%20release%5FClass%2093%20order%5FEN%2Epdf&parent=%2Fsites%2FMediaStrategy%2FShared%20Documents%2FPress%20Releases&p=true&ga=1

But happy to be corrected as to why the 93s were ordered.

 

[43096]

Read it carefully. Faster intermodals was only ever a scenario being explored. It certainly wasn‘t why the 93s were bought, or the plan for them to be used as such.

Reading it carefully, none of that has happened - it's all PR fluff. The 769s/logistics units have died a death, Orion are not running any trains and no-one is falling over themselves to lease the 93s. Not surprising, then, that CEO Karl Watts is no longer with the business.

 

[Bertie the bus]

and highlighted the role of the Orion sub-division

And Orion was a total disaster. Unfortunately ROG appear to have fallen into the same trap other smaller operators did in the past. They had success in a niche market that most of the big players weren't particularly interested in and let it go to their heads, expanded and failed.

 

[172007]

And Orion was a total disaster. Unfortunately ROG appear to have fallen into the same trap other smaller operators did in the past. They had success in a niche market that most of the big players weren't particularly interested in and let it go to their heads, expanded and failed.

Not sure Orion expanded and went to their heads. More a damp squib that didn't get going at all; comparing it to Veramis.

 

[Nottingham59]

Clearly the plan hasn't worked and ROG seem to have a £40m investment sitting around with no clear use. I'd love to see the cost data and how the economics stack up.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Not sure Orion expanded and went to their heads. More a damp squib that didn't get going at all; comparing it to Veramis.

It clearly didn't expand and I didn't say it did. I said other operators in the past have and failed, just as it looks like ROG are doing.

 

[Wyrleybart]

Read it carefully. Faster intermodals was only ever a scenario being explored. It certainly wasn‘t why the 93s were bought, or the plan for them to be used as such.

Yes. But the press release at the time (14 Jan 2021) stressed freight over passenger:

and highlighted the role of the Orion sub-division

https://railoperations.sharepoint.com/sites/MediaStrategy/Shared%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx?id=%2Fsites%2FMediaStrategy%2FShared%20Documents%2FPress%20Releases%2F2021%5F0114%5Fmedia%20release%5FClass%2093%20order%5FEN%2Epdf&parent=%2Fsites%2FMediaStrategy%2FShared%20Documents%2FPress%20Releases&p=true&ga=1

But happy to be corrected as to why the 93s were ordered.

Lets go back to the 1980s when BR were planning to lease twenty five 90mph intermodal flats from SNCF to operate a Parkeston Quay - Dallam - Coatbridge fastliner. The wagons were to be kept in sets of five with five under maintenance / PPM at Coatbridge everyday. The other twenty left Harwich with ten dropped at Dallam and the other ten continuing to Coatbridge, each of the five x five sets were cycled through the PPM regime at Coatbridge and the ten left at Dallam were reattached on the return.

It never happened and I heard various reasons - chiefly that the 90mph flats were more expensive to maintain, thus costing more to operate than the BR owned FFA and FGA. I am sure the plan has been promoted since but the facts are that the likes of DBC, FLIM, GBRf etc are opersating in a very marginal / cutthroat market where kit needs to be as economical as possible to operate. I am sure the operators and Network Rail would appreciate faster trains but they would probably draw more current out of the OLE in order to achieve the faster timings - but how can any of that be absorbed by the customers ?

 

[Meerkat]

Maybe it’s all quiet because they have a deal lined up that is taking a while to get over the line.
Or it’s waiting for DfT decisions.

 

[CW2]

Lets go back to the 1980s when BR were planning to lease twenty five 90mph intermodal flats from SNCF to operate a Parkeston Quay - Dallam - Coatbridge fastliner. The wagons were to be kept in sets of five with five under maintenance / PPM at Coatbridge everyday. The other twenty left Harwich with ten dropped at Dallam and the other ten continuing to Coatbridge, each of the five x five sets were cycled through the PPM regime at Coatbridge and the ten left at Dallam were reattached on the return.

It never happened and I heard various reasons - chiefly that the 90mph flats were more expensive to maintain, thus costing more to operate than the BR owned FFA and FGA. I am sure the plan has been promoted since but the facts are that the likes of DBC, FLIM, GBRf etc are opersating in a very marginal / cutthroat market where kit needs to be as economical as possible to operate. I am sure the operators and Network Rail would appreciate faster trains but they would probably draw more current out of the OLE in order to achieve the faster timings - but how can any of that be absorbed by the customers ?

I seem to recall it did run for a short time in the 1980s with a 90mph maximum speed on Multifret wagons, but was soon decelerated to 75 mph as an economy measure, then eventually dropped entirely.
The business case for such trains depends on their being a time-sensitive market for reasonable volumes of relatively light weight traffic. When your main export market from Scotland is whisky, which is not time sensitive but is particularly heavy, you struggle to make a financial case from the outset.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Maybe it’s all quiet because they have a deal lined up that is taking a while to get over the line.
Or it’s waiting for DfT decisions.

It hasn't been all quiet. They put out a press release a couple of months ago and what they said didn't happen, just like nothing they said in their press release last year happened and nothing in the linked press release from 2020 happened. Silence is one thing, saying stuff that never transpires is another.

 

[Mollman]

And Orion was a total disaster. Unfortunately ROG appear to have fallen into the same trap other smaller operators did in the past. They had success in a niche market that most of the big players weren't particularly interested in and let it go to their heads, expanded and failed.

I think there is also the issue that GBRf have expanded into ROG's main market

 

[43096]

I think there is also the issue that GBRf have expanded into ROG's main market

RailAdventure have also built a significant presence in the same market.

 

[Spartacus]

There are of course a few sets of Mark 5 daytime coaches looking for a home.

Apart from them likely needing modifications similar to the 68s I can't really think of much suitable. Unlike the 99s a 93 would really need to operate on a route that was primarily overheads.

Could they replace 91s on the MML test trains? Barely utilisation, never mind high utilisation. At a long shot could they even replace the 360s on the MML who's reliability doesn't seem to be improving.... They're planned to be based in the right sort of area for both.

 

[MikePJ]

East-West Rail are talking about discontinuous electrification, so that did conjure up visions of 93+Mk5s running between Oxford and Milton Keynes. (But realistically it's more likely to be Stadler FLIRTs or CAF Civities)