New Class 93 (not IC250)

Discussion in 'Traction & Rolling Stock' started by CosherB, 29 Aug 2018.

  1. Royston Vasey

    Royston Vasey Established Member

    Messages:
    1,446
    Joined:
    14 May 2008
    Location:
    Cambridge
    Thank you so much for pointing that out. I thought for a minute I was on a forum.
     
  2. 43096

    43096 Established Member

    Messages:
    5,187
    Joined:
    23 Nov 2015
    So it's twice the cost (at least) if you're double heading. Shorter freight is very much a niche market, which is why the market for electric locos has gone for increasing power. Bombardier's TRAXX is often described as "medium power" (at 4.2MW continuous rating and 5.6MW one hour rating) and that's the basic minimum for any new electric loco in Europe now.
     
  3. Skymonster

    Skymonster Member

    Messages:
    636
    Joined:
    7 Feb 2012
    So why not start another topic if you want to discuss another loco totally unrelated to the 93?
     
  4. 43096

    43096 Established Member

    Messages:
    5,187
    Joined:
    23 Nov 2015
    Is that your job application for being a moderator?
     
  5. Harbornite

    Harbornite Established Member

    Messages:
    3,639
    Joined:
    7 May 2016
    Since when were you a forum moderator?
     
  6. Royston Vasey

    Royston Vasey Established Member

    Messages:
    1,446
    Joined:
    14 May 2008
    Location:
    Cambridge
    Also, it is confirmed in which reputable news source or press release? Terribly sorry but I haven't seen one.
     
  7. Angela1966

    Angela1966 Member

    Messages:
    81
    Joined:
    9 Oct 2018
    Can we trust anything that you say?
     
  8. 43096

    43096 Established Member

    Messages:
    5,187
    Joined:
    23 Nov 2015
    That's for you to decide!
     
  9. randyrippley

    randyrippley Established Member

    Messages:
    2,007
    Joined:
    21 Feb 2016
    so they're
    Do-Do's?
     
  10. krus_aragon

    krus_aragon Established Member

    Messages:
    4,420
    Joined:
    10 Jun 2009
    Location:
    North Wales
    The only Do-Do locomotives I can find were French Steam-Electrics built in the 1890s. There were only three (including the prototype), and as all were scrapped, we can safely call them dodos as well. :)
     
  11. Photohunter71

    Photohunter71 Member

    Messages:
    477
    Joined:
    17 Jan 2012
    Short formed freight, R.O.G, double heading?!!! I haven't seen short freights/enterprise workings since the 1980's early 1990's, and what is the point of that new locomotive that a fleet of 68's and 88's can't handle? I've looked on Railway gazette and nothing has been mentioned about tenders for a new locomotive or even a whiff of an order for new UK locomotives, is the source reliable?
     
  12. 59CosG95

    59CosG95 Established Member

    Messages:
    3,803
    Joined:
    18 Aug 2013
    Location:
    WIM/PBO
    ROG want a fleet of "go anywhere" locos - they currently run diesels under wires for a lot of miles. The 93s are also due to have special couplers to haul any UK unit.
     
  13. Photohunter71

    Photohunter71 Member

    Messages:
    477
    Joined:
    17 Jan 2012
    Couldn't an 88 or 68 be fitted with such equipment?
     
  14. krus_aragon

    krus_aragon Established Member

    Messages:
    4,420
    Joined:
    10 Jun 2009
    Location:
    North Wales
    Any unit? That seems a lofty claim, given the plethora of incompatible MU systems we've had since privatisation. Even dead-hauling them all would require a versatile set of couplers.
     
  15. Photohunter71

    Photohunter71 Member

    Messages:
    477
    Joined:
    17 Jan 2012
    Good point! And whose idea was it in the first place to have a plethora of coupling systems? One across the board would have been sufficient and common sense.
     
  16. trash80

    trash80 Established Member

    Messages:
    1,204
    Joined:
    18 Aug 2015
    Location:
    Birches Green
    I've often wondered this, seems basic common sense but maybe as a manager of mine once told me "DON'T use common sense!!" :P
     
  17. Photohunter71

    Photohunter71 Member

    Messages:
    477
    Joined:
    17 Jan 2012
    Well, we should have stuck to hook and chain with buffers or the buckeye system. We didn't need dellner or any other coupling systems, that should have been made clear in tendering for new rolling stock contracts, talk about making a rod for your own back!
     
  18. TRAX

    TRAX Member

    Messages:
    759
    Joined:
    2 Dec 2015
    Location:
    Paris
    I hope this is ironic...
     
  19. GrimShady

    GrimShady Established Member

    Messages:
    1,256
    Joined:
    13 Dec 2016
    In his defence the buckeye hasn't done the Yanks any harm.
     
  20. TRAX

    TRAX Member

    Messages:
    759
    Joined:
    2 Dec 2015
    Location:
    Paris
    The Yanks use automatic couplers on their MUs, as it’s the only intelligent way of quickly coupling trains in the 21st century.
     
  21. delticdave

    delticdave Member

    Messages:
    227
    Joined:
    14 Apr 2017
    Look further..... Search for the EMD DD40X diesels, purchased by Union Pacific. Unit No. 6936 is preserved in working order & often works with their steam fleet.

    DC
     
  22. krus_aragon

    krus_aragon Established Member

    Messages:
    4,420
    Joined:
    10 Jun 2009
    Location:
    North Wales
    Hm. Its wikipedia page describes it as a D-D, rather than a Do-Do. Is there any material difference between the two?
     
  23. USRailFan

    USRailFan Member

    Messages:
    152
    Joined:
    2 May 2011
    Location:
    Norway
    There also were some SD45s built for Brazilian metre-gauge that had the same axle arrangement. Newer metre-gauge locos for Brazil (such as the "Dash 9" seem to have four two-axle bogies in groups of two instead.
     
  24. ac6000cw

    ac6000cw Established Member

    Messages:
    1,789
    Joined:
    10 May 2014
    Location:
    Cambridge, UK
    Americans don't use the 'o' suffix (to indicate individually motored axles, versus mechanically coupled axles with a shared motor) since 'individually motored' has always been the normal arrangement there. So what us Europeans would describe as a Do-Do they call a D-D.

    There were also the earlier EMD DD35 and DD35X Do-Do locos (built for UP/SP in the US), but none of those survive - so they're definitely in the 'Dodo' category...
     
  25. Photohunter71

    Photohunter71 Member

    Messages:
    477
    Joined:
    17 Jan 2012
    I go by the "If a system works and it aint broke, why try to fix it?" mantra. And you do not need a multitude of incompatible systems for drawgear, as I stated a few posts earler, common sense would be to have one uniform drawgear type across the board thus eliminating the need for special coupler vehicles between locomotive and multiple unit/hst, hence why some class 43's were retrofitted with buffer and chain-hook coupling. But I state again, the requirements should have settled on one specific drawgear type and incorporated that into tendering for new rolling stock. Anyway, this is off topic, so I'll get back on topic. Was there any mention of what diesel engine package was to be used in this proposed class 93?
     
  26. TRAX

    TRAX Member

    Messages:
    759
    Joined:
    2 Dec 2015
    Location:
    Paris
    What I don’t understand is how can you think manual coupling is better than automatic coupling where mechanical, electrical and pneumatic connections are made automatically and quickly just by pushing one train against another, without requiring any manual and time-consuming intervention before and after the process ?
     
  27. Rob F

    Rob F Member

    Messages:
    199
    Joined:
    17 Dec 2015
    Location:
    Notts
    I don't think anyone thinks that. What they do think is that is a bad idea to have a multiplicity of different incompatible couplers.
     
  28. TRAX

    TRAX Member

    Messages:
    759
    Joined:
    2 Dec 2015
    Location:
    Paris
    Well that’s not what I read but okay, on that I agree.
     
  29. 43096

    43096 Established Member

    Messages:
    5,187
    Joined:
    23 Nov 2015
    Time consuming? You have seen how long it takes for sets to couple using auto couplers, haven’t you? I bet the coupling/un-coupling of REPs/TCs/33s they used to do at Bournemouth was far quicker. Likewise, watching two Railjets couple at Wien Hbf earlier this year was an object lesson in how to do it: no fannying around with stop short etc etc, straight on, shunter underneath, screw coupler, air pipes and jumper cables done in two minutes and train ready to go.
     
  30. ac6000cw

    ac6000cw Established Member

    Messages:
    1,789
    Joined:
    10 May 2014
    Location:
    Cambridge, UK
    My bold - the 'shunter underneath' bit is exactly the reason why auto-couplers were invented more than a century ago - they avoid people having to work in the hazardous, filthy environment between/underneath railway vehicles...(auto-couplers were made mandatory in the USA in 1893 due to the accidents/injuries caused by manually coupling/uncoupling vehicles).

    Why on earth we have persisted so long in Europe with archaic side buffers and hook couplings I'll never understand...just shows how backward and conservative railway administrations can be sometimes.
     

Share This Page