• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Class 93 Tri-mode Loco

BlueLeanie

Member
Joined
21 Jul 2023
Messages
526
Location
Haddenham
Not sure if it's worth starting a speculative discussion on this or not, but.

If Stadler built or partnered with a coach builder, would it be technically possible to have a supplementary battery pack under a passenger coach to improve range or "boost" capacity?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,686
Not sure if it's worth starting a speculative discussion on this or not, but.

If Stadler built or partnered with a coach builder, would it be technically possible to have a supplementary battery pack under a passenger coach to improve range or "boost" capacity?
Not without significant modification. The coaches would be the easy bit.
 

plugwash

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2015
Messages
1,815
Not sure if it's worth starting a speculative discussion on this or not, but.

If Stadler built or partnered with a coach builder, would it be technically possible to have a supplementary battery pack under a passenger coach to improve range or "boost" capacity?
My understanding is that connecting and disconnecting traction power cables during normal service is not considered practical. So such an arrangement would mean the passenger coach in question would need to be semi-permanently connected to the loco.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
6,026
My understanding is that connecting and disconnecting traction power cables during normal service is not considered practical. So such an arrangement would mean the passenger coach in question would need to be semi-permanently connected to the loco.
I guess that wouldn't be a deal-breaker, as on services like the Welsh Marches they use the sets semi-permanently coupled.
OTOH It must be handy to be able to put the loco on whichever end of the trainset was needed after an exam, which this would make a bit more difficult. If you had a triangle near the (loco or trainset) servicing depot you could keep them together...
 

800001

Established Member
Joined
24 Oct 2015
Messages
5,451
Did the Shap tests not happen?
No

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==



Update at 11:40 on 22/05/24 post has been merged
93005 currently on route to Bilbao for onward transport to Uk.
 
Last edited:

ChristopherJ

Repeatedly returning banned member
Joined
8 Aug 2005
Messages
488
Location
London, UK
A little birdy told me this...

You know that silly piece of track between Acton Main Line and Acton Wells Junction that's currently being electrified, which should have *really* been done at the very beginning of the GWML project (don't go there).

Apparently ROG 93s are being assessed for use on the Hanwell Bridge 'trip' stone trains to Dagenham, Purfleet and Harlow.

A 59/66 will bring the huge 4,000t jumbo trains to Hanwell, where they are split into 2 or 3 smaller trains and a 93 will 'trip' the rakes to Essex.

Hanwell Bridge Loop - GWML - Acton Wells - NLL - GOBLIN - LTS.

Whole route from West London to Essex will be electrified except Hanwell Bridge Loop and Stone Terminals where diesel mode is only required at low speeds.
 

Class15

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2021
Messages
3,198
Location
North London or Mildmay line
A little birdy told me this...

You know that silly piece of track between Acton Main Line and Acton Wells Junction that's currently being electrified, which should have *really* been done at the very beginning of the GWML project (don't go there).

Apparently ROG 93s are being assessed for use on the Hanwell Bridge 'trip' stone trains to Dagenham, Purfleet and Harlow.

A 59/66 will bring the huge 4,000t jumbo trains to Hanwell, where they are split into 2 or 3 smaller trains and a 93 will 'trip' the rakes to Essex.

Hanwell Bridge Loop - GWML - Acton Wells - NLL - GOBLIN - LTS.

Whole route from West London to Essex will be electrified except Hanwell Bridge Loop and Stone Terminals where diesel mode is only required at low speeds.
Now this is extremely exciting news, if this is true I cannot wait to see these trains on the North London line and GOBLIN.
 

31160

Member
Joined
18 Mar 2018
Messages
936
A little birdy told me this...

You know that silly piece of track between Acton Main Line and Acton Wells Junction that's currently being electrified, which should have *really* been done at the very beginning of the GWML project (don't go there).

Apparently ROG 93s are being assessed for use on the Hanwell Bridge 'trip' stone trains to Dagenham, Purfleet and Harlow.

A 59/66 will bring the huge 4,000t jumbo trains to Hanwell, where they are split into 2 or 3 smaller trains and a 93 will 'trip' the rakes to Essex.

Hanwell Bridge Loop - GWML - Acton Wells - NLL - GOBLIN - LTS.

Whole route from West London to Essex will be electrified except Hanwell Bridge Loop and Stone Terminals where diesel mode is only required at low speeds.
But why would freightliner (I assume) hire in another companies traction/crew when they have their own?
 

ChristopherJ

Repeatedly returning banned member
Joined
8 Aug 2005
Messages
488
Location
London, UK
But why would freightliner (I assume) hire in another companies traction/crew when they have their own?
Same reason why ROG specified these for the intermodal sector, by logic the same practice can be applied to Heavy Haul, see article below.


Also, there's a certain man in City Hall who would like the publicity of switching more diesel freight trains in Greater London to electric.
 

Wyrleybart

Established Member
Joined
29 Mar 2020
Messages
2,017
Location
South Staffordshire
They would likely use their own crew.

It’s likely that hiring from another company (that needs to find work for their locos) is cheaper than ordering their own.
Probably depends whether Freightliner would be leant on for their "green ness".

How many diesel locos do freightliner have "off track" at the moment ? I would have thought that unless there is legislation which demands Freightliner use electric traction for parts of their operations they will continue to use their own diesel locos.

Assuming a 4000t jumbo train is split into 3 sections they will each be around 1300 tonnes which will be an interesting weight for a 93 to handle. Easy probably under 25kV.
 

Class15

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2021
Messages
3,198
Location
North London or Mildmay line
Probably depends whether Freightliner would be leant on for their "green ness".

How many diesel locos do freightliner have "off track" at the moment ? I would have thought that unless there is legislation which demands Freightliner use electric traction for parts of their operations they will continue to use their own diesel locos.

Assuming a 4000t jumbo train is split into 3 sections they will each be around 1300 tonnes which will be an interesting weight for a 93 to handle. Easy probably under 25kV.
It’s well known that Freightliner’s Heavy Haul operation has lower electricity prices than the Intermodal sector (can’t find a source right now sorry). Indeed, before the businesses were separated, Intermodal electric trains used the Heavy Haul operator code to get lower prices.

So it probably makes sense to have these stone trains electrically hauled.
 

ChristopherJ

Repeatedly returning banned member
Joined
8 Aug 2005
Messages
488
Location
London, UK
Nothing planned but a few more Heavy Haul workings that might be useful for a 93 off the top of my noggin.

Wembley - Chelmsford (GEML)
Wembley - Hitchin (ECML)
Wembley - Watford (WCML)

All FLHH workings under the wires that just require a diesel shove into stone terminals.

I hope you're reading this, Freightliner.
 

norbitonflyer

Established Member
Joined
24 Mar 2020
Messages
4,023
Location
SW London
A little birdy told me this...

You know that silly piece of track between Acton Main Line and Acton Wells Junction that's currently being electrified, which should have *really* been done at the very beginning of the GWML project (don't go there).

Apparently ROG 93s are being assessed for use on the Hanwell Bridge 'trip' stone trains to Dagenham, Purfleet and Harlow.

Whole route from West London to Essex will be electrified except Hanwell Bridge Loop and Stone Terminals where diesel mode is only required at low speeds.
There's a b8it of joined up thinking - electrify the only gap in the route and then run bimodes on it
 

Class15

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2021
Messages
3,198
Location
North London or Mildmay line
Nothing planned but a few more Heavy Haul workings that might be useful for a 93 off the top of my noggin.

Wembley - Chelmsford (GEML)
Wembley - Hitchin (ECML)
Wembley - Watford (WCML)

All FLHH workings under the wires that just require a diesel shove into stone terminals.

I hope you're reading this, Freightliner.
While we’re on it you can add Bow and Chesterton Junction to the list.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Out of interest where would 93s working London stone trains be based? Willesden?

My first thought was Merehead because of stone trains but they wouldn’t be doing trains out there.
 
Last edited:

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
16,895
Nothing planned but a few more Heavy Haul workings that might be useful for a 93 off the top of my noggin.

Wembley - Chelmsford (GEML)
Wembley - Hitchin (ECML)
Wembley - Watford (WCML)

All FLHH workings under the wires that just require a diesel shove into stone terminals.

I hope you're reading this, Freightliner.
Is there enough juice in the overheads, though?
 

ChristopherJ

Repeatedly returning banned member
Joined
8 Aug 2005
Messages
488
Location
London, UK
While we’re on it you can add Bow and Chesterton Junction to the list.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Out of interest where would 93s working London stone trains be based? Willesden?

My first thought was Merehead because of stone trains but they wouldn’t be doing trains out there.

I guessed the ROG 93s would be based at DRS Crewe due to similarity with 68/88s. Straight down the WCML.

There's also that Leicester depot being built but that's for GBRf 99s.
 

Class15

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2021
Messages
3,198
Location
North London or Mildmay line
Is there enough juice in the overheads, though?
We are talking a couple of trains a day (on approx 2-3 days of the week for each considering the nature of these workings) on each route. Plus on the GEML in particular the number of Freightliner Class 90s has recently been slashed, which should mean less juice being used by freight.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,686
Quite - bimodes are needed for that working, but the trains could have operated without electrifying the Acton spur

(yes, I know it will have other uses)
A 93 will struggle up Acton Bank unless the could get a clear run (which is unlikely), all the other off wire section are pretty flat or have empty return running uphill so electrifying Acton Bank will remove the biggest blocker to potentially using 93s.
 

ChristopherJ

Repeatedly returning banned member
Joined
8 Aug 2005
Messages
488
Location
London, UK
Freightliner already have their own electric loco's so why hire someone else's, surely it'd be cheaper to outstation a couple of shunters to do the non-electric bits
Dedicated shunters at each individual stone terminal in East London / Essex? Expensive (and inificent) with a Capital E.

A single bimode/trimode loco performs the job of both mainline and shunting loco at the terminal. No need for two separate engines.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
15,372
Location
Bristol
Dedicated shunters at each individual stone terminal in East London / Essex? Expensive (and inificent) with a Capital E.
Quite!
A single bimode/trimode loco performs the job of both mainline and shunting loco at the terminal. No need for two separate engines.
A single bi-mode loco does of course need a separate engine for the diesel mode, but that's splitting hairs even for the forum. The saving from having a single loco with multiple modes avoiding the need to staff and resource two separate locos will outweigh the greater costs of that loco.
 

Roast Veg

Established Member
Joined
28 Oct 2016
Messages
2,263
Plus on the GEML in particular the number of Freightliner Class 90s has recently been slashed, which should mean less juice being used by freight.
The physical absence of the 90s won't matter if their power requirements still have to be factored in by NR.
 

Top