Class 93 Tri-mode Loco

[Bertie the bus]

I doubt the management of ROG will have committed to the level of investment without some plan for how to recoup it. An 88's diesel is very much a last-mile capability not a proper haulage Bi-mode, and as mentioned freightliner have plenty of services a 90 can't run.

I expect many people doubted ROG would purchase a load of units and convert (some of) them without a plan either. How did Orion work out? Clue - not well.

1. ROG bid for their own flows by undercutting existing FOCs utilising the 93s new capabilities.
2. ROG sub-hire out the 93s to a range of other FOCs
3. ROG have identified passenger/Parcels haulage opportunities that make it worthwhile having sought the 110mph certification.

1. You can bid for whatever you want but it doesn't mean you will win the work. However, to bid for freight work you need wagons. ROG don't have any and there has never been any mention of them ordering any.
2. It was almost certainly their intention to hire the loco's out but, again, their intention doesn't mean it will happen. I can't see any FOCs that would take them.
3. Not a hope in hell.

 

[Geeves]

I think when it comes to questioning work loads, at the end of the day ROGs bread and butter is of course dragging things round and there's probably 15 to 20 years of solid messing around on the cards with various tocs replacing entire fleets of units, that's 1000s of moves of new and old not to mention all the testing, the 800s will be due a refurb in the next decade too, HS2 units, stuff to Scotland, Cornwall. They will be busy.

 

[43096]

I think when it comes to questioning work loads, at the end of the day ROGs bread and butter is of course dragging things round and there's probably 15 to 20 years of solid messing around on the cards with various tocs replacing entire fleets of units, that's 1000s of moves of new and old not to mention all the testing, the 800s will be due a refurb in the next decade too, HS2 units, stuff to Scotland, Cornwall. They will be busy.

There is some serious competition in that market from the bigger FOCs (DB, GBRf etc) and other specialists such as RailAdventure. It’s a competitive market and one that the high cost of a Class 93 is not suited to.

Given the time taken to get the 93s into service, I am convinced that ROG have screwed up with this order and don’t have a use/user identified for them.

 

[ac6000cw]

I think when it comes to questioning work loads, at the end of the day ROGs bread and butter is of course dragging things round and there's probably 15 to 20 years of solid messing around on the cards with various tocs replacing entire fleets of units, that's 1000s of moves of new and old not to mention all the testing, the 800s will be due a refurb in the next decade too, HS2 units, stuff to Scotland, Cornwall. They will be busy.

Only if they get the work - other FOCs also do or have done this kind of work, particularly where sizeable fleet deliveries are involved.

 

[AndrewE]

Only if they get the work - other FOCs also do or have done this kind of work, particularly where sizeable fleet deliveries are involved.

but are there any other locos which can haul all the various fleets in linespeed paths and without translator vehicles etc?

 

[cj_1985]

but are there any other locos which can haul all the various fleets in linespeed paths and without translator vehicles etc?

57/3s and 69s, and the various 37s

 

[Wyrleybart]

I expect many people doubted ROG would purchase a load of units and convert (some of) them without a plan either. How did Orion work out? Clue - not well.

1. You can bid for whatever you want but it doesn't mean you will win the work. However, to bid for freight work you need wagons. ROG don't have any and there has never been any mention of them ordering any.
2. It was almost certainly their intention to hire the loco's out but, again, their intention doesn't mean it will happen. I can't see any FOCs that would take them.
3. Not a hope in hell.

Option 2 - surely could be resolved by ROG leasing wagons from the same companies that other FOCs use. There seem to be loads and loads of shiny new (but already graffiti'd) box wagons floating around. Videos shot at Stafford seem to feature loads of examples so I assume ROG could approach Touax VTG etc, or even their own parent company Star if there was a needto procure rolling stock. I suspect Touax or VTG would hire wagons to anyone licensed in the UK, provided their money was good

 

[Nym]

57/3s and 69s, and the various 37s

Also 3off 47s at GBRf with "Translator" "Equipment".

 

[Bertie the bus]

I think when it comes to questioning work loads, at the end of the day ROGs bread and butter is of course dragging things round and there's probably 15 to 20 years of solid messing around on the cards with various tocs replacing entire fleets of units, that's 1000s of moves of new and old not to mention all the testing, the 800s will be due a refurb in the next decade too, HS2 units, stuff to Scotland, Cornwall. They will be busy.

Dragging things around isn't their bread and butter. Most of ROG's work doesn't involve the use of locomotives at all. The 93s were ordered to expand the business. ROG have repeatedly stated they are not to drag units around.

 

[Suraggu]

Option 2 - surely could be resolved by ROG leasing wagons from the same companies that other FOCs use. There seem to be loads and loads of shiny new (but already graffiti'd) box wagons floating around. Videos shot at Stafford seem to feature loads of examples so I assume ROG could approach Touax VTG etc, or even their own parent company Star if there was a needto procure rolling stock. I suspect Touax or VTG would hire wagons to anyone licensed in the UK, provided their money was good

Not to mention the class 93’s are owned by Rail Operations Assets Limited which is effectively Star Capitals rail leasing investment business rather than the operational side of ROG, there is nothing stopping them self financing wagon orders either.

Or as you state go to one of the big wagon leasing companies if required.

 

[Nym]

Dragging things around isn't their bread and butter. Most of ROG's work doesn't involve the use of locomotives at all. The 93s were ordered to expand the business. ROG have repeatedly stated they are not to drag units around.

So why do they have the jumpers on the front for Aventura and Desiro adaptor boxes…?

 

[Bertie the bus]

Not to mention the class 93’s are owned by Rail Operations Assets Limited which is effectively Star Capitals rail leasing investment business rather than the operational side of ROG, there is nothing stopping them self financing wagon orders either.

Or as you state go to one of the big wagon leasing companies if required.

There is something stopping them, i.e. lack of customers and work. Just because something could theoretically happen doesn't mean there is any chance it will.

 

[Suraggu]

Tuesdays test is timed at 2000 tonnes! Pathed as a diesel from Basford Hall - Carnforth North Jct then timed as an electric locomotive from there.

6Q09 2232 Crewe Basford Hall - Carlisle Kingmoor:

Realtime Trains | 6Q09 2232 Basford Hall Yard (Fl) to Carlisle N.Y. | 01/07/2025

Real-time train running information for 6Q09 2232 departure from Basford Hall Yard (Fl) to Carlisle N.Y. on 01/07/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[Nottingham59]

Tuesdays test is timed at 2000 tonnes! Pathed as a diesel from Basford Hall - Carnforth North Jct then timed as an electric locomotive from there.

6Q09 2232 Crewe Basford Hall - Carlisle Kingmoor:

Realtime Trains | 6Q09 2232 Basford Hall Yard (Fl) to Carlisle N.Y. | 01/07/2025

Real-time train running information for 6Q09 2232 departure from Basford Hall Yard (Fl) to Carlisle N.Y. on 01/07/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

And the same on Tuesday night / Wednesday early hours.

Realtime Trains | 6Q09 2232 Basford Hall Yard (Fl) to Carlisle N.Y. | 02/07/2025

Real-time train running information for 6Q09 2232 departure from Basford Hall Yard (Fl) to Carlisle N.Y. on 02/07/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Unlike previous tests, they've not scheduled in a pause at Tebay. I wonder if they're planning a run up to the steepest section (from Birkbeck Viaduct just after Tebay to the summit)?

 

[ac6000cw]

Tuesdays test is timed at 2000 tonnes! Pathed as a diesel from Basford Hall - Carnforth North Jct then timed as an electric locomotive from there.

6Q09 2232 Crewe Basford Hall - Carlisle Kingmoor:

Realtime Trains | 6Q09 2232 Basford Hall Yard (Fl) to Carlisle N.Y. | 01/07/2025

Real-time train running information for 6Q09 2232 departure from Basford Hall Yard (Fl) to Carlisle N.Y. on 01/07/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Interestingly, the 6Q42 return working 'Starts as Electric locomotive, trailing load 2000 tonnes' from Carlisle to Eden Valley (about 4 miles south of Penrith), then 'Pathed as Diesel locomotive, trailing load 2000 tonnes' from there to Basford Hall.

So is the southbound run going to test a 2000 tonne trailing load on Diesel + Battery southbound over Shap, from a standing starting on the 1 in 125 gradient at Eden Valley (which continues for about 6 miles)?

 

[Belfastmarty]

Interestingly, the return working 'Starts as Electric locomotive, trailing load 2000 tonnes' from Carlisle to Eden Valley (about 4 miles south of Penrith), then 'Pathed as Diesel locomotive, trailing load 2000 tonnes' from there to Basford Hall.

So is the southbound run going to test a 2000 tonne trailing load on Diesel + Battery southbound over Shap, from a standing starting on the 1 in 125 gradient at Eden Valley (which continues for about 6 miles)?

What these machines can do in diesel / battery mode is the key to their success. This is the 'game changing' capability ROG have trumpeted. If they perform well on this, it's game on, they can go and give the hard sell to TOCs with real world performance data.

 

[Richard123]

Restarting 1800 tonnes on a damp rail has already rewritten the rule book.

It's 18% more than a class 66 is passed for, and matches the much heavier class 92!

 

[Nottingham59]

Restarting 1800 tonnes on a damp rail has already rewritten the rule book.

It's 18% more than a class 66 is passed for,

Sure, but what safety margin does Network Rail use when setting the maximum permitted trailing load?

 

[Nym]

Restarting 1800 tonnes on a damp rail has already rewritten the rule book.

It's 18% more than a class 66 is passed for, and matches the much heavier class 92!

Isn't that possible with sepex motors and microcreep control?

 

[trent129]

Does anyone know which locos are going to Crewe tomorrow? Cheers

 

[Adrian Barr]

4 Restarting 1800 tonnes on a damp rail has already rewritten the rule book.

It's 18% more than a class 66 is passed for, and matches the much heavier class 92!

Sure, but what safety margin does Network Rail use when setting the maximum permitted trailing load?

Max trailing loads in the loads book for class 66s up Shap are 1535 (standard load), 1910 for the 66H load, and 1980 for a 66/6.

The ‘66H’ values shown apply to a class 66. The standard values for a class 66 are based on the loco operating in normal full power (Notch 7 on the power controller). The 66H load value is when the loco is running in Notch 8 (turbo) and can therefore run at the higher value for up to 45 minutes. The Regional Freight teams should be consulted if this time frame is to be exceeded. Seasonal variations may also be required in certain sections based on historic issues.

66H loadings should be considered the "maximum" for a standard 66, but usually involve a period of trial running before they become the agreed maximum load for a particular train or route. In reality, it's unlikely paths would be easily obtained for that much weight behind a 66 up Shap (especially during the day) due to pathing problems caused by the painfully low speed that would be achieved up the bank. Also using the full 66H load makes services more susceptible to poor railhead conditions - on some routes such as Llanwern to Dee Marsh, the max load is reduced during the worst of the autumn season. 1600 tons trailing max weight is more realistic for a real 66-hauled intermodal service up Shap such as Daventry - Mossend, which gives a benchmark for the class 93s to match.

In terms of "safety margin," trials of increased loadings usually require an extra loco to be marshalled "dead inside." This can be started up to act as an assisting loco in the event of problems, but the extra dead weight also gives a "safety margin" as the service has to prove it can convey the planned weight plus the extra weight of a dead loco.

1800 tons up Shap from a standing start is a very good performance for a Bo-Bo electric, and demonstrates the 93s could assist another failed train with its loco plus 1600 tons of wagons for example. For comparison, a single class 90 is limited to 970 tons trailing. When the 90s were used on 6X77 (Dagenham - Mossend cars which also conveyed other traffic as required) I remember one instance where the loco was unable to successfully climb Beattock with the train at maximum weight (not helped by poor railhead conditions, strong winds that made the double-deck cartics act like a "sail" catching the wind, and the long length of the train causing increased rolling resistance around the curves).

I'm not sure what the theoretical maximum is for class 92s up Shap. The 6S94 Irvine tanks were typically 20 wagons (roughly 90 tons each) and this 2018 photo of 92028 shows it hauling a DIT 66 too, making the trailing weight 1926 tons or so: https://www.flickr.com/photos/129144746@N06/39239533795/ (Photo: DieselDude321)

 

[ac6000cw]

Isn't that possible with sepex motors and microcreep control?

Back when the Port Talbot - Llanwern iron-ore trains were running with class 60s, they were taking 3000 tonnes up the 5 mile climb to Stormy Siding which averages about 1 in 100, with the final 2 miles at about 1 in 93 (and topping the summit at around 10+ mph) - and South Wales is damp. So pro-rata that's 4 axles hauling 2000t using DC-motors with Sepex control, but on a roughly 20% shallower gradient than Shap northbound.

Anyone know the maximum trailing load for a 60 northbound over Shap?

(The class 60 Port Talbot - Llanwern iron-ore train performance info based on a Roger Ford '37 versus 60 on heavy-haul' cab ride article in the November 1991 Modern Railways, where he said the 60 topped the summit at about 10mph in the screaming wheelcreep zone, with 5kA on the ammeter. The comparison trip with a pair of 'heavy' 37s topped the summit at 12 mph).

 

[Roast Veg]

Does anyone know what the model number of the traction motors is for the 93s (and perhaps also the 99s)? I assume they are still ABB 4FRA<something>, and ABB 6FRA for the 99s...

 

[saismee]

Why did 93001 run to Ipswich and back? It doesn't seem like it would have much work around Ipswich, so I can't see why it ran.

 

[Class15]

Why did 93001 run to Ipswich and back? It doesn't seem like it would have much work around Ipswich, so I can't see why it ran.

Good point but I think ROG are trying to get it cleared wherever possible. Loco switches out of Ipswich Yard for Freightliner maybe? I doubt they could handle a 775m intermodal on the branch.

 

[saismee]

Good point but I think ROG are trying to get it cleared wherever possible. Loco switches out of Ipswich Yard for Freightliner maybe? I doubt they could handle a 775m intermodal on the branch.

Possibly, but I think Freightliner would just order class 99s to match GBRf's performance to Felixstowe. If the performance is a big enough jump from the current 66s then the pathing could also be better on them.

What would be the point of a tri-mode locomotive if they're still going to do loco swaps? Why not just have a diesel locomotive for the unelectrified portion, and electric locomotives for the electrified parts (as it is now with 66s and 90s). My best prediction for why they ran to Ipswich is because some ROG drivers presumably have route knowledge. I believe there is a Norwich Crown Point to Wembley Depot path operated with 745/755s and ROG drivers.

 

[Class15]

Possibly, but I think Freightliner would just order class 99s to match GBRf's performance to Felixstowe. If the performance is a big enough jump from the current 66s then the pathing could also be better on them.

The 93s are unlikely to match 99 performance on heavy freight trains I suspect.

What would be the point of a tri-mode locomotive if they're still going to do loco swaps? Why not just have a diesel locomotive for the unelectrified portion, and electric locomotives for the electrified parts (as it is now with 66s and 90s). My best prediction for why they ran to Ipswich is because some ROG drivers presumably have route knowledge. I believe there is a Norwich Crown Point to Wembley Depot path operated with 745/755s and ROG drivers.

If it is found that the 93s cannot realistically work the Felixstowe portion, Freightliner could simply swap locos at Ipswich for 66s like they do with 90s. If they can work through to Felixstowe, even better. They wouldn’t even need to replace 90s, they could go to destinations like Lawley Street, Wentloog, Doncaster etc etc

 

[Suraggu]

Why did 93001 run to Ipswich and back? It doesn't seem like it would have much work around Ipswich, so I can't see why it ran.

Part of the certification process.

 

[hwl]

Max trailing loads in the loads book for class 66s up Shap are 1535 (standard load), 1910 for the 66H load, and 1980 for a 66/6.



66H loadings should be considered the "maximum" for a standard 66, but usually involve a period of trial running before they become the agreed maximum load for a particular train or route. In reality, it's unlikely paths would be easily obtained for that much weight behind a 66 up Shap (especially during the day) due to pathing problems caused by the painfully low speed that would be achieved up the bank. Also using the full 66H load makes services more susceptible to poor railhead conditions - on some routes such as Llanwern to Dee Marsh, the max load is reduced during the worst of the autumn season. 1600 tons trailing max weight is more realistic for a real 66-hauled intermodal service up Shap such as Daventry - Mossend, which gives a benchmark for the class 93s to match.

In terms of "safety margin," trials of increased loadings usually require an extra loco to be marshalled "dead inside." This can be started up to act as an assisting loco in the event of problems, but the extra dead weight also gives a "safety margin" as the service has to prove it can convey the planned weight plus the extra weight of a dead loco.

1800 tons up Shap from a standing start is a very good performance for a Bo-Bo electric, and demonstrates the 93s could assist another failed train with its loco plus 1600 tons of wagons for example. For comparison, a single class 90 is limited to 970 tons trailing. When the 90s were used on 6X77 (Dagenham - Mossend cars which also conveyed other traffic as required) I remember one instance where the loco was unable to successfully climb Beattock with the train at maximum weight (not helped by poor railhead conditions, strong winds that made the double-deck cartics act like a "sail" catching the wind, and the long length of the train causing increased rolling resistance around the curves).

I'm not sure what the theoretical maximum is for class 92s up Shap. The 6S94 Irvine tanks were typically 20 wagons (roughly 90 tons each) and this 2018 photo of 92028 shows it hauling a DIT 66 too, making the trailing weight 1926 tons or so: https://www.flickr.com/photos/129144746@N06/39239533795/ (Photo: DieselDude321)

In the excel load book (but not the new platform) the diesel and electric max trailing loads are calculated very differently. The electric values aren't max trailing loads but maximum loads for end to end timing purposes as such all the electric loco values should not be compared with diesel ones or real world testing. This might be what is causing some of the perception issues.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Monday at 08:48 ==

Does anyone know what the model number of the traction motors is for the 93s (and perhaps also the 99s)? I assume they are still ABB 4FRA<something>, and ABB 6FRA for the 99s...

All are ABB AMXL 400 (as 68 and 88). The model number denotes ASEA / Swedish / Vasteras heritage. The numbering system is based ASEA industrial drive numbering (AML series) with 1xx is >~250kW with increments of 250kW stepping up a hundred so 4xx demotes >= ~1MW

4FRA / 6FRA are models based on the Brown-Boveri Swiss (Zurich) / German (Mannheim) numbering e.g. 4 = 4pole, 6 = 6pole, FRA = Frame mounted rigid axle linkage, FIA = Frame mounted with Independent Axles linkage, FHA = FRA with additional height clearance, FXA = FRA with eXtra additional height clearance (e.g. for India). There is still significant linkage between Bombardier (now Alstom) locomotives and the Brown-Boveri Swiss /German heritage for example the Alstom/Bombardier Traxx MS3 and recent AC3 locomotives have 6FIA series motors.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Monday at 08:55 ==

Max trailing loads in the loads book for class 66s up Shap are 1535 (standard load), 1910 for the 66H load, and 1980 for a 66/6.



66H loadings should be considered the "maximum" for a standard 66, but usually involve a period of trial running before they become the agreed maximum load for a particular train or route. In reality, it's unlikely paths would be easily obtained for that much weight behind a 66 up Shap (especially during the day) due to pathing problems caused by the painfully low speed that would be achieved up the bank. Also using the full 66H load makes services more susceptible to poor railhead conditions - on some routes such as Llanwern to Dee Marsh, the max load is reduced during the worst of the autumn season. 1600 tons trailing max weight is more realistic for a real 66-hauled intermodal service up Shap such as Daventry - Mossend, which gives a benchmark for the class 93s to match.

In terms of "safety margin," trials of increased loadings usually require an extra loco to be marshalled "dead inside." This can be started up to act as an assisting loco in the event of problems, but the extra dead weight also gives a "safety margin" as the service has to prove it can convey the planned weight plus the extra weight of a dead loco.

1800 tons up Shap from a standing start is a very good performance for a Bo-Bo electric, and demonstrates the 93s could assist another failed train with its loco plus 1600 tons of wagons for example. For comparison, a single class 90 is limited to 970 tons trailing. When the 90s were used on 6X77 (Dagenham - Mossend cars which also conveyed other traffic as required) I remember one instance where the loco was unable to successfully climb Beattock with the train at maximum weight (not helped by poor railhead conditions, strong winds that made the double-deck cartics act like a "sail" catching the wind, and the long length of the train causing increased rolling resistance around the curves).

I'm not sure what the theoretical maximum is for class 92s up Shap. The 6S94 Irvine tanks were typically 20 wagons (roughly 90 tons each) and this 2018 photo of 92028 shows it hauling a DIT 66 too, making the trailing weight 1926 tons or so: https://www.flickr.com/photos/129144746@N06/39239533795/ (Photo: DieselDude321)

Exactly there is a big difference better max trailing load and sensible max timing loads.

As above the existing electric loco load limits are timing based (e.g. targeting 75/60/45mph max train speeds as much as possible) compared to existing diesel load limits which are trailing load limits without respect to timing. This is all being addressed behind the scenes in recent years.

The software on the 92 limits the TE to prevent coupler snapping with low rated couplers in the Channel Tunnel but the current 92 Shap values in the excel load book are still timing limited.

 

[Lemmy282]

93001, 93007 and 93010 Worksop to Crewe 19 minutes late at Beighton level crossing