Class 99 - GB Railfreight orders 30 bi-mode locos

[BernardTPM]

1 hour ago, Mike_Walker said:

According to Karl Watts - and he should know definitively - new designs of 100mph plus locomotives would not be accepted by Network rail or the RSSB.  The question was asked at the beginning of procuring the Class 93s which is why they will be Bo-Bos.  Class 92 and 89 have to be accepted as they are BR era designs with "grandfather rights" to operate on the network.  Just because something was routinely done by BR doesn't mean it can be done today - we are in a very different world.

Perhaps a blinkered one. The Class 89 bogie design had built-in yaw freedom to give a good and track friendly ride far superior to a standard six-wheel bogie.

[Mike_Walker]

1 minute ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Sorry about this I'm not trying to start a controversy, but why a ban on 100mph Co-Co vehicles? What has changed so a Deltic replacement isn't now permitted?

The Deltic was designed in the mid-fifties in a very different world to today or even the 1990s.  Today we have a far better understanding of wheel-rail interface and the effect various types of bogie etc have on the track.  A huge amount of work into this was started by BR Research and has been continued since.  In short, no, a Co-Co Deltic replacement would not be allowed today.  Looking away from these shores, can anyone think of a Co-Co high speed passenger locomotive built this century?  Freight, plenty but not passenger.

[DY444]

1 hour ago, Mike_Walker said:

According to Karl Watts - and he should know definitively - new designs of 100mph plus locomotives would not be accepted by Network rail or the RSSB.  The question was asked at the beginning of procuring the Class 93s which is why they will be Bo-Bos.  Class 92 and 89 have to be accepted as they are BR era designs with "grandfather rights" to operate on the network.  Just because something was routinely done by BR doesn't mean it can be done today - we are in a very different world.

 

Again, there is, it appears, a deal in place to use the Class 93 on at least one passenger operation.  Karl didn't mention which specifically but left his audience in no doubt as to what it is which ties in with what I've heard directly from the other party but as I've been told it in confidence I'm not going to reveal the identity here.  The Class 93, and the Class 99, is an extremely sophisticated piece of kit and the power available away from the OLE will not be directly related to the output of the diesel engine.  Both ROG, the TOC concerned, and NR are confident the 93 will be suitable.

 

The Class 99 is an out and out freight locomotive designed to match (almost) the performance of a Class 66 away from the OLE which is why it does not have ETS or the other things needed for modern passenger operation.  The only time you will see one on a rake of coaches will be a "CrankEx".  ROG don't intend to use Class 93s for heavy haul freight but they will be used for express logistics and intermodal trains along with all the current work that ROG performs with 37s, 47s and 57s plus some passenger work.  For that reason they will be "fully loaded" and probably the most complex locomotives ever to operate in this country.  For example, in addition to conventional couplings they will have Delner couplers to mate with modern MUs which requires them to have FIVE different height settings!

 

A Class 88 may be a bi-mode but its capacity on diesel is very limited; what is called in the trade "last mile" capability.  Classes 93 and 99 are both true bi-modes designed to work trains equally, or nearly so, in either mode.

 

ROG and GBRf have gone for Classes 93 and 99 respectively because they match their aspirations for deployment.  Their decisions might not seem logical to us mere enthusiasts - even if we are in the trade - but Karl Watts and John Smith are committing both their companies to multi-million pound investments with these acquisitions and neither will have got to signing on the dotted line without an awful lot of planning which has actually already taken several years before metal is cut.

 

 

Firstly nobody mentioned 100mph plus merely 100mph.  Secondly 100mph Co-Cos have been acceptable on the infrastructure for over 60 years and now a new design isn't.  You couldn't make it up.  Either bogie designers of the late 1950s were complete geniuses whose mystical powers have baffled present day engineers and their computer design tools or this is precisely what I said before, somebody putting obstacles in the way because they can (see also ORR), not because there is any engineering reason to do so apart from a desire to skimp on historic standards of track maintenance to save money.  That isn't a good idea whatever you're running.  In short tail wagging the dog again. 

 

As for the capabilities of a Class 93 off the ole we'll see.  I remain sceptical about the ability of the short term battery to deal with situations where power is needed for longer than its rating eg where you have sustained climbs or a series of climbs with little or no chance to replenish the battery in between eg on the down road from Newton Abbot.  Imo a true go anywhere, do anything bi-mode needs type 4 power off the ole which the 93 simply doesn't have however much you big up the supposed capabilities of the battery boost.

[PenrithBeacon]

2 minutes ago, Mike_Walker said:

The Deltic was designed in the mid-fifties in a very different world to today or even the 1990s.  Today we have a far better understanding of wheel-rail interface and the effect various types of bogie etc have on the track.  A huge amount of work into this was started by BR Research and has been continued since.  In short, no, a Co-Co Deltic replacement would not be allowed today.  Looking away from these shores, can anyone think of a Co-Co high speed passenger locomotive built this century?  Freight, plenty but not passenger.

No I can't,  but I have always assumed that was because passenger train weights make a Bo-Bo configuration acceptable. 

Also, modern electronic engineering allows, in North America, the current designs to have A-1-A bogies, where the middle axle simply spreads to weight, but the engines are 4,400hp diesels where the power is  delivered by two axles per bogie. In the British context 3,300-ish hp is enough, but why can't that be delivered by a Bo-Bo?

I might be over simplifying here, but that is my understanding. 

[BernardTPM]

Just missing this century*, but post-Privatisation, the Class 67s could have had bogies of the same design as the Class 89 if EWS had been prepared to spend the extra.

 

* which started in 2001

[Mike_Walker]

1 minute ago, BernardTPM said:

Just missing this century*, but post-Privatisation, the Class 67s could have had bogies of the same design as the Class 89 if EWS had been prepared to spend the extra.

 

* which started in 2001

No they couldn't.  As I said, EWS were told by Railtrack Co-Cos for 100mph or more were unacceptable.

 

Today, we have access to complex computer modelling that shows designers the interface between a wheel and the rail and its effects in a level of detail undreamed of before.  Back in the 1950s, 60s or even 80s that was simply not possible.  It therefore makes sense to apply those findings when designing new equipment which will have, hopefully, a long life and not employ a sub-optimal design because it appeared to work well half a century or more ago.  

 

There are loads of cases were there are unfathomable bans on equipment such as Class 170s on the Chiltern Line but those are too often because nobody's asked and in today's world the answer is "no" until the question is asked.  In this case the answer is "no" for sound technical reasons not the arbitrary decision of some pen-pushing clerk.

[mdvle]

2 hours ago, DY444 said:

Secondly 100mph Co-Cos have been acceptable on the infrastructure for over 60 years and now a new design isn't.  You couldn't make it up.  Either bogie designers of the late 1950s were complete geniuses whose mystical powers have baffled present day engineers and their computer design tools or this is precisely what I said before, somebody putting obstacles in the way because they can (see also ORR), not because there is any engineering reason to do so apart from a desire to skimp on historic standards of track maintenance to save money.  That isn't a good idea whatever you're running.  In short tail wagging the dog again.

 

Or, alternately we now have a much better base of knowledge of what different bogie designs do to the track and as a result the necessary maintenance required - as noted by others in this thread.

 

If a Co-Co bogie at 100mph+ increases the maintenance costs of the track then why, with today's knowledge, would we allow new designs to use that design when effectively 100mph+ Co-Co locos have disappeared from the network except a small handful of grandfathered preserved designs?

 

It isn't skimping on track maintenance, it's being aware of the costs and creating resulting rules to help prevent any increases to the cost of maintenance.

[DY444]

4 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

Or, alternately we now have a much better base of knowledge of what different bogie designs do to the track and as a result the necessary maintenance required - as noted by others in this thread.

 

If a Co-Co bogie at 100mph+ increases the maintenance costs of the track then why, with today's knowledge, would we allow new designs to use that design when effectively 100mph+ Co-Co locos have disappeared from the network except a small handful of grandfathered preserved designs?

 

It isn't skimping on track maintenance, it's being aware of the costs and creating resulting rules to help prevent any increases to the cost of maintenance.

 

But *if* it becomes a requirement to maximise use of the installed ole to minimise emissions and there remains a requirement to operate locomotive hauled passenger trains on routes which are partially electrified then you are stuck.  A Bo-Bo with enough power to operate such services is not feasible - if it were it would already be in the pipeline.  So it's a Co-Co or don't run the services. 

 

It is skimping on maintenance in the sense the cost of doing the maintenance to the standard required to retain the previous capability is now deemed too high.  In short it is being maintained down to a price not to a capability; if you like, an insidious form of managed decline. 

 

Finally the negativity attracted by the suggestion of a Co-Co passenger locomotive (which would be quite useful to 3 service groups at least) is quite sad really.  It must be very depressing to work in an industry where the prime objective now seems to be always to find reasons not to do something rather than finding ways to do it should the requirement arise.  Doesn't bode well. 

 

Anyway I'm done.

Edited May 2, 2022 by DY444

[BernardTPM]

3 hours ago, Mike_Walker said:

..not employ a sub-optimal design because it appeared to work well half a century or more ago. 

The Class 89 bogies were hardly a 50 year old design in 2000, just over a decade and quite unlike previous 'rigid' designs.

[mdvle]

4 hours ago, DY444 said:

But *if* it becomes a requirement to maximise use of the installed ole to minimise emissions and there remains a requirement to operate locomotive hauled passenger trains on routes which are partially electrified then you are stuck.

 

Or you simply add to the electrification.

 

Though how this bits of missing electrification fits into your original argument that the 93 won't work out of Newton Abbot, which is nowhere near any electrification, I can't figure out.

 

But if you really can't extend the electrification in time you can always modify the schedule to fit what is available - and if we reach the point that we are that desperate as per your case above people won't be driving their petrol cars either so a schedule change won't be the end of the world.

 

4 hours ago, DY444 said:

A Bo-Bo with enough power to operate such services is not feasible - if it were it would already be in the pipeline.

 

Maybe, maybe not.

 

The real issue is that the private sector doesn't see a need for such a loco, and thus the private sector isn't looking to have one built.

 

That doesn't mean of course if circumstances change and a need is identified that such a loco won't suddenly appear in the pipeline...

 

4 hours ago, DY444 said:

It is skimping on maintenance in the sense the cost of doing the maintenance to the standard required to retain the previous capability is now deemed too high.  In short it is being maintained down to a price not to a capability; if you like, an insidious form of managed decline.

 

Nobody who cares about spending money wisely - whether it be a private organization or a responsible government organization - wastes money maintaining infrastructure to a level that is no longer required.

 

If the capability is no longer required there is no point wasting money maintaining it - it can if needed again in the future have additional money spent to bring it back.

 

At some point it has to be accepted that one needs to live in the present and spend accordingly, otherwise you find yourself being eliminated for good (whether through bankruptcy or a government killing you off).

 

4 hours ago, DY444 said:

Finally the negativity attracted by the suggestion of a Co-Co passenger locomotive (which would be quite useful to 3 service groups at least) is quite sad really.

 

If it was really that useful/essential they would have found a way to achieve what they want, even if it means paying higher track access charges to cover the higher maintenance costs.

 

The fact this hasn't happened is a pretty good indication that there isn't any current need for a brand new Co-Co passenger loco.

[Ncarter2]

I have been following this thread with and been enjoying the debate. I don’t think it is right to say Co-Co’s that already exist are running under grandfather rights, if there was a genuine concern, they wouldn’t be allowed to run. Consider the 37 hauled diagrams of recent times. I am not sure on the speeds they were attaining, but I’d be surprised if it was sub 75mph timings. During various rail management forums, there was no adverse uptake in

track wear or maintenance requirements. The current sleeper service using the the 92’s is running on track designed with tilting trains in mind and maintained as such, during the WCML upgrade there were several who had concerns about an increase in track wear and maintenance costs once freight and non tilt stock had been running on it for a period of time. Reality of that was the 350 Desiro’s caused excessive track wear/damage to the point of needing modifications. Running the freight on them didn’t really make much difference, and while freighter may use electrics, GBRF do not and EWS/DB used to run a mixed bag depending on the freight/destination. I would argue the 66’s with their radial steering bogies played a part in that. Indeed, only recently, we had modelling done of track force and angle of attack forces completed for a section that suffered an infrastructure failure, it was very interesting to see just how much of a difference there was between the 66’s and 59’s, but the 70’s, well

lets just say, eye opening. Compared with some Bo-Bo’s you’d be surprised at the difference and in some

cases lack of, between classes. The 89 had a good bogie that performs well at high speed, I recall Brush offered the technology but it was declined on cost grounds. 
It could be argued that there is no need for a Co-Co high speed locomotive, but then is that short sightedness due to a lack of suitable bogie being in existence or locomotive designs being able to cope with Bo-Bo’s ? I don’t believe NR has banned high speed Co-Co’s, I think it is more that there is not a design that exists deemed suitable. However, I have a college who works within the vehicle dynamics/rail interaction team and he conducts most of the modelling, so I will ask the question. (just to note, he’s been on the railway in a similar role since later BR days and is one of the leading experts for NR currently, so he’s seen the various methods used to assess bogie designs and the relative interaction etc).
I think it is fair to say, the 89 aside, that the 92’s will be the last Co-Co electric to haul a regular passenger train at 80mph, a locomotive designed to haul freight and sleeper trains through the channel tunnel. 
I appreciate this all relates to speeds less than 100mph, be we did and to a degree still do, have 37’s and 47’s running around at 80mph plus. 
As for Rail Track, less said about them

the better I think. 

[Nova Scotian]

On 02/05/2022 at 16:33, Ncarter2 said:

I would argue the 66’s with their radial steering bogies played a part in that. Indeed, only recently, we had modelling done of track force and angle of attack forces completed for a section that suffered an infrastructure failure, it was very interesting to see just how much of a difference there was between the 66’s and 59’s, but the 70’s, well

lets just say, eye opening. Compared with some Bo-Bo’s you’d be surprised at the difference and in some

cases lack of, between classes.

Forgive my ignorance - are the 70s hard on the track, while the 66s are surprisingly good (because radial bogie), or have I misunderstood?

 

 

[Mike_Walker]

Can't comment on Class 70s but a now retired driver friend of mine says a 66 rides very roughly above about 60 compared to a Class 37 or 60.  But in both the 66 and 70 the maximum permitted speed is 75mph.

[admiles]

3 hours ago, Mike_Walker said:

Can't comment on Class 70s but a now retired driver friend of mine says a 66 rides very roughly above about 60 compared to a Class 37 or 60.  But in both the 66 and 70 the maximum permitted speed is 75mph.

I'd rather hope your friend doesn't have too much experience of a class 60 above 60mph....

[Mike_Walker]

2 hours ago, admiles said:

I'd rather hope your friend doesn't have too much experience of a class 60 above 60mph....

Slip of typing, l should have said up to 60 on a 60 but I'm sure you all know what I meant.

[frobisher]

On 02/05/2022 at 15:15, BernardTPM said:

The Class 89 bogies were hardly a 50 year old design in 2000, just over a decade and quite unlike previous 'rigid' designs.

Also they were (are?) the only C0-C0 bogies passed for 100mph+ running on British tracks.

[russ p]

I think some of the perceived issues with Co-Co locomotives running at speed stems from amtraks SDP40  and E60 locomotives but a lot of the problems with the was down to boiler tanks mounted high up in the loco body. For me the bogie under EE Co-Co locos rides better than any other especially at speed. Even the 4w bogies under 68s and 88s can be lively at times

[Anadin Dogwalker]

What's not been mentioned here yet is whether the traction motors are fully suspended (HST,81-5, 86/1, 87,90) nose mounted (86 except /1, most diesels )  or body mounted (APT-P, 91 and 370). if they forked out for fully suspended, then the design would be good to 100 at least. If bog-standard nose suspended, then the unsprung mass would be prohibitive much above 75mph. What was the arrangement in the 89 and 92s?

[BernardTPM]

Class 89 were fully suspended, frame mounted, but the significant feature was its ability to curve. The Class 92 are similar, but without that latter feature or the extra dampers for high speed.

[Ncarter2]

20 hours ago, Nova Scotian said:

Forgive my ignorance - are the 70s hard on the track, while the 66s are surprisingly good (because radial bogie), or have I misunderstood?

 

 

In a nutshell yes. There are many factors which will play a part, condition of equipment etc but, 70’s are not as track friendly and 66’s. I will need to double check a published report and see if the relevant information was included, but if it is in the public domain, then the modelling data shows just how different the two are. It was a surprise to us when we seen the initial data set, it was expected they would be similar. 

[Ncarter2]

12 hours ago, Mike_Walker said:

Can't comment on Class 70s but a now retired driver friend of mine says a 66 rides very roughly above about 60 compared to a Class 37 or 60.  But in both the 66 and 70 the maximum permitted speed is 75mph.

I have been lucky enough to cab 59’s, 60’s, 66’s and 70’s on Wessex as well as 60’s and 66’s on the WCML. The 60’s were the smoothest in my opinion. 59’s depended on which ones, the 59/0’s seemed to be worse than the 59/1’s & 59/2’s. 66’s varied across operator's, and 70’s were actually not too bad, however, as wheels wore and mileage accumulated, it would have an effect and the condition of the track also played a part. There was one section of the Basingstoke - Eastleigh corridor in the Up direction that rode horrendously, it was subject of several rough ride reports, following refurbishment works to the track, the issue was eliminated and no further reports received. Interestingly, going off on a tangent, the 220 units with their lightweight bogies are less tolerant of poorer track conditions compared with the 221’s. 

[cg501]

The only Co-Co locos built today capable of doing 100+  are variants of Siemens's  Eurorunner EC30 and EC20CF. 

 

They were heavily tested at Czech Railway Research Institute VUZ at Velim, with both types reaching 200kph. Both Co-Co variants produced less track damage than the Bo-Bo variant. which was why Lithuanian Railways and Austrian Railways switch some of their orders, I also think Kowloon-Canton Railway has 5, but these are now limited to 140kph, due to maintenance issues. 

 

a version of Stadler Euro was offered to the US with Co-Co wheel arrangement and 160kph capability.

Edited May 4, 2022 by cg501
additional info.

[Covkid]

On 02/05/2022 at 15:09, DY444 said:

It must be very depressing to work in an industry where the prime objective now seems to be always to find reasons not to do something rather than finding ways to do it should the requirement arise.  Doesn't bode well. 

 

Anyway I'm done.

 

Very much so. I have stuck it out but I made one very serious misjudgment in my 44 year career last year.  I didn't apply for Rishi Sunak's voluntary severance package. The lats twelve months have fundamentally change the passenger industry and I just need to find a way out.

The industry is obviously struggling financially, as are most in the UK, but they are doing absolutely every in their power to avoid the most obvious requirement.  Even with petrol and diesel at eye watering levels - there still isn't the drive to electrify routes in England and Wales 

[icn]

On 02/05/2022 at 01:39, Ken.W said:

 

Compared to the 91s, putting down 6000hp on four axles.

 

Reminds me of an occasion in the early years of the 91s

 

Exiting the cab on arrival at KX, an elder gent, who'd alighted from the train, asked me what they were like for wheelslip

My reply was that they'd slip if a cloud came over!

He then introduced himself as having been one of the BR project engineers, who'd been pressing for them having six-wheeled bogies

Forgive my ignorance, but how do the SBB manage fine with 4 Axles on the RE 460 which offers 6.1MW (and BLS's RE 465 even manages 7MW) - the 91 is a similar weight, and doesn't even achieve 5MW. It's true that the RE 460 has a slightly lower top speed, but these locos get used on a wider variety of duties and even the passenger usage is fairly heavy (a MK IV rake is child's play compared to a 10-car IC 2000 never mind the additional EW IVs at peak times).

[letterspider]

Looking forward to seeing the Class 99 in OO Gauge...hopefully it will be taken up by a manufacturer with an already proven competence in designing electric locos with BW pantograph....