RMweb Premium Pannier Tank Posted June 15, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 15, 2014 I read a comment in one of the railway mags yesterday that Serco were going to use rebuilt Class 73"s to haul the Sleeper in Scotland! What would be the point of this and where is the 3rd rail in Scotland? XF The 73's will be making use of the new 1600HP MTU Diesel Engine plus ETH. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 Think in terms of it being a type 2 diesel that also has a 3rd rail capability rather than its original configuration of a 3rd rail electric loco with a tiny shunting engine. That said, a long way to go before that starts... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerces Fobe2 Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 Think in terms of it being a type 2 diesel that also has a 3rd rail capability rather than its original configuration of a 3rd rail electric loco with a tiny shunting engine. That said, a long way to go before that starts... I agree it just appears to be a waste of a useful resource! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrel Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 I read a comment in one of the railway mags yesterday that Serco were going to use rebuilt Class 73"s to haul the Sleeper in Scotland! What would be the point of this and where is the 3rd rail in Scotland? XF On the Glasgow underground however there could be a gauging issue Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 Think in terms of it being a type 2 diesel that also has a 3rd rail capability rather than its original configuration of a 3rd rail electric loco with a tiny shunting engine. That said, a long way to go before that starts... With 1600hp available that puts it in to type 3 territory, ahead of the class 33! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMartin90125 Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 More pics here Cheers, Mick It looks a bit strange with the new lighting clusters and so on. Was there a reason it wasn't given a new class number? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 I read a comment in one of the railway mags yesterday that Serco were going to use rebuilt Class 73"s to haul the Sleeper in Scotland! What would be the point of this..... The point of it, is that it was a vital component of GBRf's successful offer for traction and traincrew into Serco's winning bid. Therefore, it is the most cost-effective haulage solution available for the north-of-Edinburgh portion of the operation, for whatever service pattern Serco offered. GBRf's loco portfolio gives it a decent competitive edge I reckon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium newbryford Posted June 15, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 15, 2014 It looks a bit strange with the new lighting clusters and so on. Was there a reason it wasn't given a new class number? Possibly a lot to do with paperwork! It's highly likely that it won't need to go through full certification process (but probably still a lot of forms to be filled in!) as it uses an existing body design (with modifications) and existing bogies - possibly even the traction motors, so in effect it's another sub-class of 73. Cheers, Mick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 Possibly a lot to do with paperwork! It's highly likely that it won't need to go through full certification process (but probably still a lot of forms to be filled in!) as it uses an existing body design (with modifications) and existing bogies - possibly even the traction motors, so in effect it's another sub-class of 73. Cheers, Mick I'm guessing she'll need VAMPIRE modelling, Mick. Axle loads will no doubt be slightly different, so a synthetic route clearance exercise needs carried out, then the independent Technically Competent Person process to ensure all the construction/ build paperwork's in order. I sit whispering distance from the guy who's looking after it, but I haven't been involved personally. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NXEA! Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 The point of it, is that it was a vital component of GBRf's successful offer for traction and traincrew into Serco's winning bid. Therefore, it is the most cost-effective haulage solution available for the north-of-Edinburgh portion of the operation, for whatever service pattern Serco offered. GBRf's loco portfolio gives it a decent competitive edge I reckon. You say that but I honestly thought it would be DRS providing loco's. They have the latest Bo-Bo Diesel locomotive with a lot of power and genuine mixed traffic capabilities, which gives them a choice of those or 47's for the Aberdeen/Inverness portions as well as tried and tested 37/4's to go to Fort William, not to mention 100mph Bo-Bo Electro-Diesel's coming on stream next year, perfect for the electric leg of the Highland, and the Lowland sleeper. So when it was announced that GBRf were providing traction I was surprised - 92's with an 87mph top speed, which will make pathing south of Crewe difficult in the up direction as both Up sleepers are timetabled for 100mph. As well as the fact they have no higher-powered ETH diesel for the Aberdeen/Inverness legs. Presuming they pair the 73's up for the banks and gradients, that's 5 of the class tied up on the sleeper, seems a little inefficient to me. They may well use them singly, but I don't know how a 1600hp Bo-Bo with almost 50 year old EE506 traction motor's is going to handle the Highland banks with up to load 8 bolted on day in day out? Personally I would've thought hired-in Riviera 47's would be better candidates for that, but having raised that suggestion on WNXX, was told they were for freight work. Interesting times ahead! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 You say that but I honestly thought it would be DRS providing loco's. They have the latest Bo-Bo Diesel locomotive with a lot of power and genuine mixed traffic capabilities, which gives them a choice of those or 47's for the Aberdeen/Inverness portions as well as tried and tested 37/4's to go to Fort William, not to mention 100mph Bo-Bo Electro-Diesel's coming on stream next year, perfect for the electric leg of the Highland, and the Lowland sleeper. It comes down to asset cost at the end of the day, and what the FOC is prepared to sell it out for over 15 years. It was obviously more expensive for DRS to provide the service from their new fleet, tying new locos up on not especially intensive traffic patterns. When the bids were being marked, weighting was given to each answer (like in an exam, you must show your working!), and diesel Co-Co power from those two heritage classes wasn't highly regarded, AFAICT. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NXEA! Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 It comes down to asset cost at the end of the day, and what the FOC is prepared to sell it out for over 15 years. It was obviously more expensive for DRS to provide the service from their new fleet, tying new locos up on not especially intensive traffic patterns. When the bids were being marked, weighting was given to each answer (like in an exam, you must show your working!), and diesel Co-Co power from those two heritage classes wasn't highly regarded, AFAICT. Very true, and of course every penny must be accounted for and scrutinised on the modern railway, I'm just surprised that the operational practicalities of possible pairs of 73's on two legs stacked up better than other alternatives! If they do turn out to be used singly, then they'll be much cheaper track access and fuel wise to Inverness/Aberdeen, but I just can't help but wonder if 1600hp will be enough day in day out with up to load 8! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 Personal opinion (and I genuinely don't know what was offered by Serco/ GBRf here), was that the Highland Main Line portion to Inverness would be double headed, the Aberdeen and Fort Bill portions being single engined. Bear in mind I've only worked on the loadings for the existing/ refurbished MkIIIs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NXEA! Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 Personal opinion (and I genuinely don't know what was offered by Serco/ GBRf here), was that the Highland Main Line portion to Inverness would be double headed, the Aberdeen and Fort Bill portions being single engined. Bear in mind I've only worked on the loadings for the existing/ refurbished MkIIIs. Thanks for the info. Just as well that GBRf have got 16 of the things then, as at least 5 (four in service, one spare) will be required north of the border if that comes off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium John M Upton Posted June 15, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 15, 2014 Surely it would have been cheaper to design and commission new build (or adapt an existing off the shelf design for new build) rather than rehash forty+ year old frames for perhaps half the life span a brand new loco would give? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
royaloak Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 I read a comment in one of the railway mags yesterday that Serco were going to use rebuilt Class 73"s to haul the Sleeper in Scotland! What would be the point of this and where is the 3rd rail in Scotland? XF I think its more a question of the 1500hp diesel loco (forget the 3rd rail stuff) is ideal for that sort of train, the current 3200hp class 67s used on those trains are very expensive to run and are overkill for the loads they haul. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NXEA! Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Surely it would have been cheaper to design and commission new build (or adapt an existing off the shelf design for new build) rather than rehash forty+ year old frames for perhaps half the life span a brand new loco would give? No way. The stringent EU regulations coming into force from 2015 virtually preclude any off the shelf designs being adapted. It's been quoted somewhere that the existing 68 design would have to be longer to accomodate everything, and GBRf have been told that for a new IIIB compliant diesel adapted from the ubiquitous Class 66 that they'd need to order at least 100 to make it financially worthwhile to recoup the design costs. Any diesels are just to hold FOC's over until the advent of the wires going up at the end of CP5/beginning of CP6. The opening of E-W and the completion of the electric spine should enable FOC's to switch to electric on some flows, theoretically reducing their dependence on diesel for a fair proportion of Intermodal work for example. So until then a cheap alternative is needed. DRS are currently looking at re-engineering some 37's and have bought up more in the meantime, whilst GBRf have found the solution is buying up all the 73's they can land their hands on. The re-engineering of the class provides a class more powerful than a 31 which can double up on diesel to match a 66 for horsepower whilst also being able to be used on third rail around Hoo Junction and Tonbridge which is where GBRf have a lot of NDS work, and more importantly using the same bodyshell, traction motor's, bogies and chopper control, therefore bypassing most of the paperwork and red tape involved in getting a new class rolling on NR metals. It also frees up more 66's for work in other area's, allowing GBRf to expand their business until 92's can make more use of the impending electrification, and all at a fraction of the time and money spent developing a new class of diesel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wombatofludham Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Just curious but I wonder with modern electronics if it would be feasible to squeeze in a rectifier pack to allow 25kv to power the electrics as well as 3rd rail and diesel? That would truly be a very useful bit of kit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 You need a big heavy transformer as well, which would be certain to push the loco well beyond its weight limit, even if you could fit it in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David41283 Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 There are two separate 73 rebuilds going on at once? 73951/2 as this NR pilot project with two smaller engines. 73961 etc as the GBRF rebuilds (there is a photo on GBRF facebook - with the 'bagpipes' but in new places to allow for the WIPAC lights), with a single much bigger engine. https://www.facebook.com/GBRailfreight/photos/a.597451983671079.1073741826.412897192126560/612820788800865/?type=1&theater Why then have they not got different subclasses? Surely one should be 73/8 and the other 73/9? Is this the first instance where the 73/9/5X is different to the 73/9/6X! The GBRF one looks better if you ask me. What are all the strange extra windows for on the 7395x? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 You need a big heavy transformer as well, which would be certain to push the loco well beyond its weight limit, even if you could fit it in. Transformer weights (and sizes) have come down appreciably in the last couple of decades; that's how SNCF have come up with multiple units that run on diesel. 1500V DC and 25kV AC (B82500) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Interesting unit - seems built upside down with the passengers underfloor and the equipment on top! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Interesting unit - seems built upside down with the passengers underfloor and the equipment on top! The idea is to put kit somewhere accessible, and also to have as low a floor as possible, given most SNCF stations have very low platforms. When they're stood on platform, it's difficult to know if they're running on diesel or electric. Max speed is 140 kph on diesel and 160 kph under the wires. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted June 23, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted June 23, 2014 The idea of a 1600hp diesel with a whopping great potential hotel demand tagged on behind it suggests to me that the Fort William portion is not going to be a very big train - unless it is double headed. There's an awful lot of 1in60ish or 1in80ish slogging at just about the time the showers will be running Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frobisher Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Just curious but I wonder with modern electronics if it would be feasible to squeeze in a rectifier pack to allow 25kv to power the electrics as well as 3rd rail and diesel? That would truly be a very useful bit of kit. Isn't there a 92 rebuild in the works at the moment as well which is adding a diesel generator? Not heard too much about that lately. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.