Aesthetically the forward facing camera for coupling would have been better placed lower in the black area where the Stadler logo is.
there are multiple forward facing cameras, one for coupling (angled down) and the general forward facing one. The higher they are the easier they are to keep clean.
The pantograph height can be adjusted on existing pantographs. The two 319s that went into the tunnel had the modifications done.
Class 92s seem to cope with the tunnel wire height. I think that they just have different limits set in the software for each railway (UK, France, and Eurotunnel).
Other than the Eurotunnel shuttle services, there wouldn’t be any upshot if HS1 [and the corresponding LGV] are not converted to ETCS at the same time.
That’s correct but you have to start somewhere. The two national systems don’t have to be completed at the same time but digital signalling is an aspiration for both countries and is being progressed on the national networks.
There is a plan for the tunnel to convert to ETCS but it's not happening soon. LGV Nord to Lile or Calais is programmed to be converted first, then Belgian HSL-1 and then the Tunnel + HS1 will go at the same time. HS1 goes last because it has the latest section to open, phase 2 in 2007.
Thanks for sharing - this really is an interesting read. Another thing I found quite intriguing is that the fuel tank has a capacity of 3,000L, which is actually smaller than the tank capacity of the class 93s (3,200L) according to the 93 case study that you shared on that loco's thread.
Yes that is amazing (on paper)! According to Wikipedia (can't find original source), Class 66 at rail power is 1.85MW, meaning the 99s should theoretically be more than three times powerful on the overheads. Would be really interested to know what the at rail diesel power rating is. At 1.79MW at engine, it'll have roughly 75% of the engine power of a 66 (again, according to Wikipedia, this is 2.4MW for the sheds), but if the locomotives are more efficient in putting down the power, my hopes for the 99s keeping up with sheds on the majority of freight flows are quite high.
I recall there is an option for more. I would suspect they would be used on flows where almost the entire journey could be done with electric power, but the final mile or terminal is not wired. Many flows will be mainly diesel power, and I'd expect them to stay diesel hauled.
Why not, 1.79MW diesel rating is not a small amount of power and with 3 phase drive is highly likely to have more power at rail than a 47 and will be more sure footed?
I could see them on such as Felixstowe containers though
Shifting things out of there is a largely a function of tractive effort rather than horsepower. As a Class 60 offers 474kN starting tractive effort and the Class 99 has 500kN and is also AC drive, then I'd be surprised if they weren't capable.
At least they've got a diesel engine they can use if the voltage drops too low.
This is probably harder than it sounds, because I doubt the limitations on supply will mostly be on the available continuous current (although they could be thermal limits on transformers), rather more likely a risk of short-term voltage dips if two trains draw maximum power at the same time. With old electromechanical stock this was not a great issue, because one tripped out and then was re-set by the driver a few seconds later. This used to happen routinely when two 507/508 were booked to leave Capenhurst at the same time - a new substation was required for the 777s. With modern stock, all to often they don't like even very short voltage dips and take much longer to reset / reboot.
Just possibly we need to start upgrading some more power supplies - not just for these, but also for new passenger stock.
You know, that feels like a lot of effort to burn more diesel - better to just upgrade the power supply
They will work along side. There are currently no plans to retire any 66's.
From my understanding of the power supplies that need upgrading - it is the desire is to keep demand below a certain level so that gradual overheating of the line-side equipment does not happen. I wonder if this means the demand has to drop BEFORE the voltage drops ?. In which case a different way of detecting too much demand over time might be needed.
It needs some system that detects when a feeder station or a transformer starts to get hot, and transmits that data to trains in the vicinity that have the flexibility to switch to diesel or delay recharging their batteries. The alternative is manage demand by limiting the number of electric paths in the timetable. Which is what they do now.
Yes. They let things start to overheat BUT only for so long. I is currently managed by demand (timetabling) rather than looking at the effect.
This has been covered in detail and is highly unlikely. For starters, the maximum speed of the 99s is too low (75mph), the 99s don't have ETH capability to provide the coaches with electricity, and you wouldn't even save the time spent at Edinburgh because the train splits into three segments there. The 99s would be much better placed on (heavy) freight trains
I'm sure that's the plan. It would be good to have a clearer idea of the economics of operation of these locomotives
