General state of electric loco fleet

[Railperf]

I guess so, but a Stadler Eurolight is a bit boring tbh, even a Bombardier TRAXX is more exciting.
Maybe I like euro locos a bit too much!

Can't beat the old SNCF nez casses!!

 

[hooverboy]

A UK gauge version of these beasts is what you’re after: https://www.stadlerrail.com/media/pdf/leurodualhvle0317e.pdf

It combines the Class 68 engine with a 7MW electric loco, though 5MW would be more than sufficient for UK use (same as a Class 92).

what is desperately needed is a bi-mode short wheelbase type 3.(1500-2000bhp) with low route availability.

class 20/31/37 are way overdue replacement, and there is nothing modern in that category doing the rounds at present.
even the proposed class 93 has too long a wheelbase,being modelled on the 68/88 platform they're RA7 which puts some quite serious restrictions on where they can and can't go.

the 73/9's are in the right sort of ballpark power wise and wheelbase-wise, but do not have 25Kv capability.
cl37's are extremely versatile, but now getting very old and uneconomical

electric traction seems not to be much of a problem. most of the present fleet are in reasonable shape,
heavy haul diesel likewise,
it's mainly low-ish density working mixed traffic diesel/multi purpose traction that we have a shortage.

 

[HSTEd]

The Class 93 is a step in the right direction, but it is still a Bo-Bo with a tiny diesel engine.

What is needed is a locomotive with the performance of a Class 66 under diesel power (using a hybrid settup if necessary) and the performance of a standard electric locomotive under the wires.
Co-Co and as big an engine as you can fit.

Then you need hundreds of them to replace all the 66s, 60s, 70s and various other similar locomotives on the regular freight duties.

If you want a light duty locomotive you should look more towards Stadlers road-shunter locomotives, although not really sure there is much demand there.

 

[43096]

what is desperately needed is a bi-mode short wheelbase type 3.(1500-2000bhp) with low route availability.

class 20/31/37 are way overdue replacement, and there is nothing modern in that category doing the rounds at present.
even the proposed class 93 has too long a wheelbase,being modelled on the 68/88 platform they're RA7 which puts some quite serious restrictions on where they can and can't go.

the 73/9's are in the right sort of ballpark power wise and wheelbase-wise, but do not have 25Kv capability.
cl37's are extremely versatile, but now getting very old and uneconomical

electric traction seems not to be much of a problem. most of the present fleet are in reasonable shape,
heavy haul diesel likewise,
it's mainly low-ish density working mixed traffic diesel/multi purpose traction that we have a shortage.

Any new-build replacement for such a loco is going to have a very limited market in the UK, which probably makes it largely unaffordable. There just isn't sufficient demand for such a loco, and using a Type 5, whilst not being ideal for some lighter trains, actually makes more sense as it means less loco types to support.

 

[hexagon789]

Can't beat the old SNCF nez casses!!

DB 103 - 9,980hp continous.

 

[43096]

DB 103 - 9,980hp continous.

SBB Re6/6 - 10,525hp.

Mind you Stadler are now offering an electric only version of the EuroDual I linked to earlier rated at 9MW - over 12,000hp.

 

[hexagon789]

SBB Re6/6 - 10,525hp.

Mind you Stadler are now offering an electric only version of the EuroDual I linked to earlier rated at 9MW - over 12,000hp.

Buy those them. Should be able to lug a good train behind that sort of power.

Personally I think 90s would be decent enough to replace the 86s, aren't those 86s the less powerful ones anyway?

 

[Far north 37]

what is desperately needed is a bi-mode short wheelbase type 3.(1500-2000bhp) with low route availability.

class 20/31/37 are way overdue replacement, and there is nothing modern in that category doing the rounds at present.
even the proposed class 93 has too long a wheelbase,being modelled on the 68/88 platform they're RA7 which puts some quite serious restrictions on where they can and can't go.

the 73/9's are in the right sort of ballpark power wise and wheelbase-wise, but do not have 25Kv capability.
cl37's are extremely versatile, but now getting very old and uneconomical

electric traction seems not to be much of a problem. most of the present fleet are in reasonable shape,
heavy haul diesel likewise,
it's mainly low-ish density working mixed traffic diesel/multi purpose traction that we have a shortage.

I can understand possibly a replacement for the class 37s but a replacement for the class 20s and 31s which ate type 2 locos i cant see where they would even be used.

Desperately needed is miles of the mark the only locos out of that lot even in use is class 37s on test trains which seem to have no problems where a desperate replacement is required.

 

[hooverboy]

I can understand possibly a replacement for the class 37s but a replacement for the class 20s and 31s which ate type 2 locos i cant see where they would even be used.

Desperately needed is miles of the mark the only locos out of that lot even in use is class 37s on test trains which seem to have no problems where a desperate replacement is required.

the required replacement for the 20's is down to the low RA..same as with 37's.(both RA5).I've gone for type 3 as a 37 is usually capable of doing a 2*cl20 freight haul on it's own.

It's not just test trains that need hauling, it's also quite nasty curvy branch lines etc that need rail treatment,de-icing,milling etc, and to be honest the present haulage is not exactly fuel efficient!

it's successor definitely needs to be hybrid/stop start, and there are still some use cases where 500T haulage capability will be ok,and a 66 is overkill.

the "bigger type 5" sort that a lot of people are espousing are typically RA7 or higher,

 

[ac6000cw]

the required replacement for the 20's is down to the low RA..same as with 37's.(both RA5).I've gone for type 3 as a 37 is usually capable of doing a 2*cl20 freight haul on it's own.

It's not just test trains that need hauling, it's also quite nasty curvy branch lines etc that need rail treatment,de-icing,milling etc, and to be honest the present haulage is not exactly fuel efficient!

it's successor definitely needs to be hybrid/stop start, and there are still some use cases where 500T haulage capability will be ok,and a 66 is overkill.

the "bigger type 5" sort that a lot of people are espousing are typically RA7 or higher,

Getting somewhat off-topic, but I suspect a Bo-Bo hybrid diesel-battery centre-cab loco would handle that part of the market nicely - say 1000hp-ish diesel under one hood, and a large-as-possible battery under the other. 25kV capabilty isn't really worth it - mainlines that have OHLE can normally handle higher RA locos anyway, and the 'nasty curvy branch lines' are unlikely to get OHLE anytime soon. Essentially a hybrid version of a MaK/Vossloh 'G' series loco, which (as HSTed said) tend to be common power for this sort of work elsewhere in Europe.

As the need/use for this kind of traction is thinly spread geographically (and a large part of the potential work is NR-related), it feels like it ought to be a 'common-user' fleet, hired out on a power-by-the-hour basis to whichever operator has the contract for that job. NR could guarantee a baseload of work to get a leasing company interested, I suspect.

That said, some 'freight' 769 conversions might work quite well as railhead treatment and de-icing trains (BR used to use converted MU's for this purpose).

 

[rebmcr]

Getting somewhat off-topic, but I suspect a Bo-Bo hybrid diesel-battery centre-cab loco would handle that part of the market nicely - say 1000hp-ish diesel under one hood, and a large-as-possible battery under the other. 25kV capabilty isn't really worth it - mainlines that have OHLE can normally handle higher RA locos anyway, and the 'nasty curvy branch lines' are unlikely to get OHLE anytime soon. Essentially a hybrid version of a MaK/Vossloh 'G' series loco, which (as HSTed said) tend to be common power for this sort of work elsewhere in Europe.

So how exactly are you intending for the battery to be recharged?

 

[hooverboy]

That said, some 'freight' 769 conversions might work quite well as railhead treatment and de-icing trains (BR used to use converted MU's for this purpose).

I think 1000bhp is likely to be a bit underpowered,seeing as the loco in question will be required as mixed traffic with a low-medium haul capability.
the 88's have 960bhp I think, but it is very rare you see them running on diesel.
1500-2000bhp is really the sweet spot.

as for converted 769's having NR Jobs,might well do,it's a pretty good concept. Even a modified pacer or 153 might work on some really desolate lines!

 

[Entertexthere]

I think 1000bhp is likely to be a bit underpowered,seeing as the loco in question will be required as mixed traffic with a low-medium haul capability.
the 88's have 960bhp I think, but it is very rare you see them running on diesel.
1500-2000bhp is really the sweet spot.

as for converted 769's having NR Jobs,might well do,it's a pretty good concept. Even a modified pacer or 153 might work on some really desolate lines!

Hell, you could've ended up using a converted 153 as a Severn Tunnel rescue loco before they introduced the road-rail rescue vehicles!

 

[ac6000cw]

So how exactly are you intending for the battery to be recharged?

From the diesel engine when it's not at full power, and with recovered energy during braking, in normal hybrid style.

 

[geoffk]

A pair of 86s active this afternoon on the WCML, working a Coatbridge - Crewe intermodal, but for how much longer?

 

[delticdave]

Electric locos tend to have a longer life than diesels anyway, as they are simpler machines with much fewer moving parts - eventually it gets uneconomic to repair them, but if (as is the case with the 86's) there were originally many more built, you can always stockpile the used spares from withdrawn/scrapped locos to keep a small fleet going for some time.

(When these were retired in 1995, they were nearly 77 years old! - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CN_Boxcab_Electric )

In their last years they were restricted to much shorter trains, must of the loco-hauled trains were worked by GP7 diesels, with a pair of e-loks pulling the outbound consist up the hill through the tunnel. The electrics would cut-off at Portal Heights & run light until the 1st crossover, then run back through the tunnel to Central station & repeat the performance.
I've been lucky enough to be invited into an MU cab in '94 (& I've the video to prove it....) & to have been in the Montreal area in '95, enabling me to ride the last train.

 

[rebmcr]

From the diesel engine when it's not at full power, and with recovered energy during braking, in normal hybrid style.

That's a bit of a retrograde step when it comes to eliminating carbon fuels.

 

[ac6000cw]

That's a bit of a retrograde step when it comes to eliminating carbon fuels.

But the idea is not aimed at the sort of use that ROG's (expensive, I suspect) class 93 tri-mode is targeting - it's about the sort of 'off the mainlines', low RA, infrastructure monitoring and maintenance use that currently is the preserve of dirty, fuel hungry, 55-year old class 37's because there is nothing else suitable. If you make the design too complicated and expensive to buy the 37's will carry on...

Re. the diesel power - I picked on 1000 hp because that is roughly what the, pretty compact, MTU power packs under the IETs produce. The smaller & lighter the diesel engine is, more space and weight budget is available for batteries to provide much higher short/medium term power - 1500+ hp maybe? (if you can squeeze more diesel power into similar space/weight - fine, and it's a bonus).

Also quite a few infrastructure monitoring and maintenance trains seem to run top-and-tailed (usually with the trailing loco being hauled dead) - fit these with radio remote control so that both locos can power the train and you've got quite a decent haulage capability. Even just on diesel, at typical heavy-haul hp/tonne a pair could handle 2000 tonnes.

A straight diesel loco would likely be cheaper, but I'm trying to be as 'green' as possible here without getting stupidly complicated/expensive/heavy - engineering design is all about getting the best possible compromise of capability, features and cost for the product.

 

[hooverboy]

But the idea is not aimed at the sort of use that ROG's (expensive, I suspect) class 93 tri-mode is targeting - it's about the sort of 'off the mainlines', low RA, infrastructure monitoring and maintenance use that currently is the preserve of dirty, fuel hungry, 55-year old class 37's because there is nothing else suitable. If you make the design too complicated and expensive to buy the 37's will carry on...

Re. the diesel power - I picked on 1000 hp because that is roughly what the, pretty compact, MTU power packs under the IETs produce. The smaller & lighter the diesel engine is, more space and weight budget is available for batteries to provide much higher short/medium term power - 1500+ hp maybe? (if you can squeeze more diesel power into similar space/weight - fine, and it's a bonus).

Also quite a few infrastructure monitoring and maintenance trains seem to run top-and-tailed (usually with the trailing loco being hauled dead) - fit these with radio remote control so that both locos can power the train and you've got quite a decent haulage capability. Even just on diesel, at typical heavy-haul hp/tonne a pair could handle 2000 tonnes.

A straight diesel loco would likely be cheaper, but I'm trying to be as 'green' as possible here without getting stupidly complicated/expensive/heavy - engineering design is all about getting the best possible compromise of capability, features and cost for the product.

in terms of engine mass there's not a huge difference in weight between an 8 cyl 1000bhp and a 12cyl (or 2*6cyl)1500bhp total, it's only a couple of tonnes.
I think the ability to top and tail/combine with DVT for push-pull would be very useful,for both infrastructure and passenger workings.

the new 73/9 is quite clever,because with 2*800bhp it's possible to run it on just one engine if required,which for something like a short form working like the 2*37's do on the wherry line,can save a huge amount of fuel.(nice for enthusiasts,but I imagine it costs a fortune to run!!)

Ideally though, you need 2 engines (not necessarily 2 locomotives) as the power plant,as if one engine is down you still have operational/limp home capability too.

NR trains are typically only 3-4 carriages,so this should be easily do-able, and there's plenty of DVT's available from ECML and GA once the 90/91/92's are retired/redeployed

who knows, maybe vivarail can do a cut "n" shut on the 86's!
throw in some modern power rectifiers and transformers with a couple of qsk19's and gensets from a 22x..that would be in the right sort of ball park

 

[HSTEd]

If you really want a small loco, using modern traction controllers you can probably make a Type 2 dual voltage electrodiesel with a very low route availability and suprisingly high tractive effort.
Not sure it would be worth it though.

 

[hooverboy]

If you really want a small loco, using modern traction controllers you can probably make a Type 2 dual voltage electrodiesel with a very low route availability and suprisingly high tractive effort.
Not sure it would be worth it though.

I think the smallest mainline locos they ever did was the class 24/25/26/27 at RA4.
surprisingly good little engines!
a little underpowered for freight work(so used in pairs like cl20's mostly),but could handle low density diagrams,and still fast enough for a passenger working occasionally-6 or 7 coaches was the maximum the rat's could take singly, otherwise it was a double header.

the old cement trains near me was typically 2*cl25 or 1*cl33 as traction

 

[HSTEd]

I think the smallest mainline locos they ever did was the class 24/25/26/27 at RA4.
surprisingly good little engines!
a little underpowered for freight work(so used in pairs like cl20's mostly),but could handle low density diagrams,and still fast enough for a passenger working occasionally-6 or 7 coaches was the maximum the rat's could take singly, otherwise it was a double header.

the old cement trains near me was typically 2*cl25 or 1*cl33 as traction

Well with modern traction packs (scaling from the Class 70, which I know is crude but yeah) we might be able to get 120kN starting tractive effort into a 30 tonne locomotive that might even manage RA1 (like a Class 04!)
Thats probably a little on the low side for practical use as that is not quite Class 08 TE levels, but you would have rather more power available in all likelihood.

 

[hwl]

I think the smallest mainline locos they ever did was the class 24/25/26/27 at RA4.
surprisingly good little engines!
a little underpowered for freight work(so used in pairs like cl20's mostly),but could handle low density diagrams,and still fast enough for a passenger working occasionally-6 or 7 coaches was the maximum the rat's could take singly, otherwise it was a double header.

the old cement trains near me was typically 2*cl25 or 1*cl33 as traction

The 88s on diesel apparently have more TE than a 37.

 

[alexl92]

Has there actually been a class 93 announced/specified? Last I heard, it was a hypothetical or intended class but there was nothing more concrete than that?

 

[ac6000cw]

Has there actually been a class 93 announced/specified? Last I heard, it was a hypothetical or intended class but there was nothing more concrete than that?

According to this article in RAIL magazine, yes, 10 are on order (at more than £4 million each) - https://www.railmagazine.com/news/n...s-fuels-its-ambitions-with-tri-mode-class-93s (Modern Railways has published some info about them as well, as far as I remember).

 

[GrimShady]

Shouldn't we be looking at articulated bi mode locos?

 

[Railperf]

The 88s on diesel apparently have more TE than a 37.

up to what speed?

 

[rebmcr]

Shouldn't we been looking at articulated bi mode locos?

Yep, they could even be semi-permanently coupled — with the electric gear in one segment, diesel in the other, and batteries next to whichever is smaller. Mix and match halves to cover maintenance (maybe have a few extra diesel halves to allow for their extra maintenance).

 

[Harbornite]

A pair of 86s active this afternoon on the WCML, working a Coatbridge - Crewe intermodal, but for how much longer?

Not sure if it's wibble but I've seen December being mentioned. 86s will be 'canned' by then, replaced by 90s displaced from GA.

 

[hexagon789]

Not sure if it's wibble but I've seen December being mentioned. 86s will be 'canned' by then, replaced by 90s displaced from GA.

I've seen that in a few places, so while it may not happen to schedule it would seem that is at least the general plan.