Class 93 Tri-mode Loco

[craigybagel]

If true, this will hopefully put an end to the suggestions they go to TfW to replace the 67s.

 

[Nym]

How many people on here saying, "It won't be able to do long diesel only journeys" actually know for a fact how much of it's time a contemporary locomotive on straight diesel actually spends in the higher notches of power?

A not insignificant number of Class 66s and 67s have the top notch locked out of use now so won't produce their full tractive effort, and you don't have them running at full throttle, all the time!

Remember, the old rule of 1kW at generator to 1hp at rail doesn't hold true for modern traction systems like it does for the more 'traditional' traction systems used in the likes of the Class 66s.

 

[Peter Sarf]

If true, this will hopefully put an end to the suggestions they go to TfW to replace the 67s.

It is true but I doubt it will stop those who believe in things such as perpetual motion.

 

[Nottingham59]

well, it has got 6,200 hp according to Wikipedia, are you afraid the wires can't supply that?
It would only be on diesel if something had failed, or if they weren't prepared to pay NR's power price - and doing that would probably cost them a lot for delay repay!

Oh, it's got plenty of power on electric (4.6MW compared to 1.85MW at the rail for a 66). The issue is whether it will have enough tractive effort (pulling force) to be able to apply that power up a hill.

The 93 specification says tractive effort of 290kN, which is just enough to hold a 1800t train on a 1.5% gradient. But if the 93 can't actually achieve that pulling power on a wet icy rail in leaf fall season, then it will just spin its wheels and never get anywhere.

 

[craigybagel]

How many people on here saying, "It won't be able to do long diesel only journeys" actually know for a fact how much of it's time a contemporary locomotive on straight diesel actually spends in the higher notches of power?

A not insignificant number of Class 66s and 67s have the top notch locked out of use now so won't produce their full tractive effort, and you don't have them running at full throttle, all the time!

Remember, the old rule of 1kW at generator to 1hp at rail doesn't hold true for modern traction systems like it does for the more 'traditional' traction systems used in the likes of the Class 66s.

The modified 67s didn't have the top notch locked out - it was still accessible, you just had to lift the handle over a gate to use it. It meant you couldn't accidentally use it, but it was there if you needed it. I believe the same is true for 66s.

TfW have put out a notice to drivers reminding them that they are allowed use it (and not all of our locos have the gate anyway) any time they feel necessary - and as someone who drives them regularly, I can assure you that a large portion of Manchester/Chester - Cardiff is spent in notch 8.

It is true but I doubt it will stop those who believe in things such as perpetual motion.

Indeed - which is especially amusing given the headline figures for the power these locos could supply in their various modes suggested all along that this would be the case.

 

[43096]

How many people on here saying, "It won't be able to do long diesel only journeys" actually know for a fact how much of it's time a contemporary locomotive on straight diesel actually spends in the higher notches of power?

A not insignificant number of Class 66s and 67s have the top notch locked out of use now so won't produce their full tractive effort, and you don't have them running at full throttle, all the time!

Remember, the old rule of 1kW at generator to 1hp at rail doesn't hold true for modern traction systems like it does for the more 'traditional' traction systems used in the likes of the Class 66s.

It seems the mythical properties of these contraptions are alive and well...

There is no way a 93 on diesel (equivalent power to a Class 25) with some battery (to make it a Class 33 until the Duracells go flat) is going to be able to match a 66, even if the 66 has run 8 strapped out.

 

[AndrewE]

Oh, it's got plenty of power on electric (4.6MW compared to 1.85MW at the rail for a 66). The issue is whether it will have enough tractive effort (pulling force) to be able to apply that power up a hill.

The 99 specification says tractive effort of 290kN, which is just enough to hold a 1800t train on a 1.5% gradient. But if the 93 can't actually achieve that pulling power on a wet icy rail in leaf fall season, then it will just spin its wheels and never get anywhere.

OK, and in fact the Wikipedia page does talk about

ROG intends to pair the locomotive with a new generation of freight wagons that would run at a maximum speed of 100 mph (160 km/h), comparable to that of contemporary passenger trains. Trains formed of such wagons would be easier to insert into timetables around and between existing passenger trains, increasing flexibility and potentially creating capacity for more freight trains on the national network

so maybe they aren't designed for heavy haul. Even so, if they are doing good work on less heavily graded routes (e.g. the S end of the WCML) it would be possible to stick another on the front at Preston for the run through to Scotland.

 

[Sun Chariot]

The modified 67s didn't have the top notch locked out - it was still accessible, you just had to lift the handle over a gate to use it. It meant you couldn't accidentally use it, but it was there if you needed it. I believe the same is true for 66s.

TfW have put out a notice to drivers reminding them that they are allowed use it (and not all of our locos have the gate anyway) any time they feel necessary

Interesting insight, thanks for sharing. The top-notch "gated" rather than being a "normal" notch - is that done to manage engine emissions (I.e. conscious decision to run top notch, rather than leaving it in "8" subconsciously)? Or for another operational reason?

 

[ChristopherJ]

Why would you want to charge the battery at a time when full traction is needed?

For the next battery boost once the train stops and restarts again.

Interesting insight, thanks for sharing. The top-notch "gated" rather than being a "normal" notch - is that done to manage engine emissions (I.e. conscious decision to run top notch, rather than leaving it in "8" subconsciously)? Or for another operational reason?

I believe the Notch 8 gate was added by EWS to Class 66/67s to preserve fuel consumption.

I remember being told Notch 8 was only to be unlocked with permission from EWS control, where full power was necessary. All other times Notch 7 was the max.

Use it without permission and you'd be marched in front of Keith Heller waving a big spanking stick.

 

[Peter Sarf]

OK, and in fact the Wikipedia page does talk about

so maybe they aren't designed for heavy haul. Even so, if they are doing good work on less heavily graded routes (e.g. the S end of the WCML) it would be possible to stick another on the front at Preston for the run through to Scotland.

What I understood was that the power of the 93 (or was it 99?) combined with faster wagons would be enough to allow an intermodal to use one path instead of three paths over Shap and Beattock. So increasing the capacity of the Northern West Coast Main Line. That would also reduce the track access charges for the operator of a 93 which helps justify the cost of purchasing the 93 to replace a 66.

For the next battery boost once the train stops and restarts again.

I suppose the hope is that once stopped the 93 might have time to re-charge the battery from its engine before the green appears.
I problem example would be if the battery was drained accelerating away from Felixstowe and then the freight BRIEFLY stopped short of the Junction at Ipswich. Then a laborious entry to the main line might ensue. Chances are though that the knitting extends far enough down to branch to overlap the signal protecting the junction.

I believe the Notch 8 gate was added by EWS to Class 66/67s to preserve fuel consumption.

I remember being told Notch 8 was only to be unlocked with permission from EWS control, where full power was necessary. All other times Notch 7 was the max.

Use it without permission and you'd be marched in front of Keith Heller waving a big spanking stick.

My guess is saving fuel, it is always about saving money !.

 

[CW2]

The Wikipedia entry quoting ROG as having intentions to use these locos on 100mph intermodal trains has a strong whiff of uninformed PR nonsense about it.
What intermodal wagons are passed for 100mph operation in the UK? None.
What traffic is both light enough to keep the axle load within limits and also sufficiently time-sensitive to justify the higher costs of 100mph operation? Nearly nothing.
Speed is only part of the equation. Increasing the speed of intermodal trains can give important network capacity benefits, but if it triggers a rise in per-unit costs or reduces the weight capacity of the containers then the entire proposal implodes.
The real benefit comes from running existing services faster by replacing diesels with electrics.

 

[Peter Sarf]

The Wikipedia entry quoting ROG as having intentions to use these locos on 100mph intermodal trains has a strong whiff of uninformed PR nonsense about it.
What intermodal wagons are passed for 100mph operation in the UK? None.
What traffic is both light enough to keep the axle load within limits and also sufficiently time-sensitive to justify the higher costs of 100mph operation? Nearly nothing.
Speed is only part of the equation. Increasing the speed of intermodal trains can give important network capacity benefits, but if it triggers a rise in per-unit costs or reduces the weight capacity of the containers then the entire proposal implodes.
The real benefit comes from running existing services faster by replacing diesels with electrics.

Probably better acceleration under the wires even if not any higher top speed is a benefit as well.

 

[Nottingham59]

The Wikipedia entry quoting ROG as having intentions to use these locos on 100mph intermodal trains has a strong whiff of uninformed PR nonsense about it.
What intermodal wagons are passed for 100mph operation in the UK? None.
What traffic is both light enough to keep the axle load within limits and also sufficiently time-sensitive to justify the higher costs of 100mph operation? Nearly nothing.
Speed is only part of the equation. Increasing the speed of intermodal trains can give important network capacity benefits, but if it triggers a rise in per-unit costs or reduces the weight capacity of the containers then the entire proposal implodes.
The real benefit comes from running existing services faster by replacing diesels with electrics.

ROGs original intention was to develop a new breed of 100mph intermodal flats, but that proposal clearly has not gone anywhere.

== == ==

Eventually, I'd expect to see 93s on the southern WCML, where the steepest gradients seems to be 0.34% near Kilsby and near Lichfield. 93s should be easily able to haul 1800t maximum length intermodals on there.

I don't know what the steepest graients are from Gateway to Primrose Hill, but Gateway-Crewe would look like the ideal route for a 93.

Over Shap and Beattock, the steepest gradients I can find are around 1.4%. So I'd expect the 93s to be authorised to haul trailing loads up to around 1000t on the northern WCML to give a generous safety margin. In either case, the 93s under electric will have far better acceleration and far better speed up gradients than the Class 66. So they should be able to win paths in the timetable that would not be available to a 66.

EDIT:
The steepest gradient on the GOBLIN line seems to be 1.53% for a distance of 600m where it goes over the Great Eastern mainline. That is going to limit the abilty of the 93 to haul the heaviest intermodals on the Gateway-Crewe route.

https://www.railwaydata.co.uk/linefiles/route/?ELR=TAH2

 

[bahnause]

For the next battery boost once the train stops and restarts again.

I would rather use the rerenerative brake during braking and the diesel engine during standstill. You also don't need the full power when starting off. The surplus power from the diesel can then also be used to fill the battery.

 

[craigybagel]

Interesting insight, thanks for sharing. The top-notch "gated" rather than being a "normal" notch - is that done to manage engine emissions (I.e. conscious decision to run top notch, rather than leaving it in "8" subconsciously)? Or for another operational reason?

For the next battery boost once the train stops and restarts again.


I believe the Notch 8 gate was added by EWS to Class 66/67s to preserve fuel consumption.

I remember being told Notch 8 was only to be unlocked with permission from EWS control, where full power was necessary. All other times Notch 7 was the max.

Use it without permission and you'd be marched in front of Keith Heller waving a big spanking stick.

The notices from EWS in the cabs about them are still there on some locos, and they mention it as a fuel saving initiative.

 

[Sun Chariot]

The ROG's LinkedIn news feed, with photos of 93001, that I'd put onto post #1234 of this thread. I'm surprised ROG hasn't edited their 93 photos to include a L.I. "Open To Work" green banner...

 

[hwl]

The notices from EWS in the cabs about them are still there on some locos, and they mention it as a fuel saving initiative.

In 66( &67) the specific fuel consumption (i.e. g/kwh) is best (i.e. lowest in these units) and increases slightly in notch 7 and much further in notch 8.
Also due to adhesion limitations notch 8 doesn't deliver any more TE at low speed than lower notches but does warm the traction motors up more.

 

[Richard Scott]

In 66( &67) the specific fuel consumption (i.e. g/kwh) is best (i.e. lowest in these units) and increases slightly in notch 7 and much further in notch 8.
Also due to adhesion limitations notch 8 doesn't deliver any more TE at low speed than lower notches but does warm the traction motors up more.

We are getting off topic but please explain how motors warm up more; it would imply more current flowing and by definition the force exerted must be greater.

 

[Electrojuniper]

what a protracted mess with the Class 93 introduction. Hope lessons are being learnt for the Class 99's from the EMC / Route Compatibility / design perspective.

May be one day........ they may enter service.

 

[craigybagel]

what a protracted mess with the Class 93 introduction. Hope lessons are being learnt for the Class 99's from the EMC / Route Compatibility / design perspective.

May be one day........ they may enter service.

To be fair, with the 99s it's pretty safe to assume GBRF already have worked lined up for them. If ROG have work waiting for the 93s to become available to cover, they're keeping very quiet about it. GBRF likely have more incentive to get their locos into service in a timely manner.

 

[BlueLeanie]

At 80kWh capacity the battery will discharge at 400kW in about 12 minutes.

At Boost to maintain 40mph, that's equivalent to travelling 8 miles - a good distance.

 

[Nottingham59]

At 80kWh capacity the battery will discharge at 400kW in about 12 minutes.

At Boost to maintain 40mph, that's equivalent to travelling 8 miles - a good distance.

I'm sure they'll only use the battery for going uphill, or accelerating to linespeed. Maintaining 40mph (on the level) will only need the diesel, and also allow the battery to be recharged

 

[Northerngirl]

To be fair, with the 99s it's pretty safe to assume GBRF already have worked lined up for them. If ROG have work waiting for the 93s to become available to cover, they're keeping very quiet about it. GBRF likely have more incentive to get their locos into service in a timely manner.

I'm sure one will have a good couple of days at the gathering in derby atleast

 

[Rail Quest]

I'm sure one will have a good couple of days at the gathering in derby atleast

That didn't take long to age!


[Image shows Facebook post by The Greatest Gathering, confirming that a ROG Class 93 will be featured at the event. Source: https://www.facebook.com/thegreatestgathering/]

 

[Wyrleybart]

what a protracted mess with the Class 93 introduction. Hope lessons are being learnt for the Class 99's from the EMC / Route Compatibility / design perspective.

May be one day........ they may enter service.

I don't think you need have any concerns regarding class 99 testing and introduction. GBRf are a very different organisation to ROG / Star, and I am sure will have a different methodology.

 

[ExRes]

That didn't take long to age!
View attachment 174324

[Image shows Facebook post by The Greatest Gathering, confirming that a ROG Class 93 will be featured at the event. Source: https://www.facebook.com/thegreatestgathering/]

I love the "subject to operational availability", its appearance is touch and go then?

 

[Class15]

I love the "subject to operational availability", its appearance is touch and go then?

Judging by the pace of testing so far, it might well have gone back to Valencia by then

 

[Class15]

EDIT:
The steepest gradient on the GOBLIN line seems to be 1.53% for a distance of 600m where it goes over the Great Eastern mainline. That is going to limit the abilty of the 93 to haul the heaviest intermodals on the Gateway-Crewe route.

You can go via Forest Gate Jn, Stratford, Camden Road and then back into Gospel Oak (or even via Primrose Hill). However there is a long-standing problem of capacity at Forest Gate Jn which limits freights going this way.

 

[Bald Rick]

Over Shap and Beattock, the steepest gradients I can find are around 1.4%. So I'd expect the 93s to be authorised to haul trailing loads up to around 1000t on the northern WCML to give a generous safety margin. In either case, the 93s under electric will have far better acceleration and far better speed up gradients than the Class 66. So they should be able to win paths in the timetable that would not be available to a 66.

EDIT:
The steepest gradient on the GOBLIN line seems to be 1.53% for a distance of 600m where it goes over the Great Eastern mainline. That is going to limit the abilty of the 93 to haul the heaviest intermodals on the Gateway-Crewe route.

There’s 66s with 1400t on intermodals on the WCML now, You can be sure that 93s, with almkst twice as much power at the rail, will be hauling at least that with impunity.

And that gradient on the Gospel Oak line will simply not be a probem.

 

[Nottingham59]

There’s 66s with 1400t on intermodals on the WCML now, You can be sure that 93s, with almkst twice as much power at the rail, will be hauling at least that with impunity.

And that gradient on the Gospel Oak line will simply not be a probem.

Are you sure about that? 66s can provide a much higher tractive effort than the 93. It doesn't matter what power you have at the rail, if the locomotive does not have the tractive effort to be able to apply that power.

Consider the worst case of a standing start with an 1800t maximum intermodal on a 1.53% gradient. With the 93 weighing 86t, the tractive effort needed will be 0.0153 x 1886t = 28.85t = 283kN.

The tractive effort available from the 93 is claimed to be just 290kN, presumably under the best conditions. So no margin for error. If that maximum pulling force is reduced in any way by poor rail conditions or any other reason, then the 93 will spin its wheels and the train will get stuck.

Of course, in real life , amtrain on the GOBLIN line will have momentum at the bottom of the gradient, and will coast up and over the hump over the GEML, but I'd be surprised if NR allows the margins to be so tight.

== == == ==

Now consider the WCML. If I were running a FoC looking to use the 93 over Shap and Beattock, I'd want a 50% safety margin on tractive effort. On a 1.4% gradient, that means a maximum trailing load of 145kN/9.8/0.014 - 86 = 970 tonnes.

Because of its higher power (4.6MW), the 93 will be able to pull those 970 tonnes up the hill at nearly three times a fast as a class 66 (1.85MW). But it all depends on what tractive effort the 93 is able to deliver in real life, on wet rails, in leaf fall season. Which is why real life tests with a heavy train are going to be so important for the future of the 93.

I'm really keen to see what maximum trailing load is eventually allowed for the 93 over that section of the northern WCML. I bet it won't be 1800t.