Supaned Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Never mind all the important business details - what everybody wants to know is : what colour will they be...? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
westie7 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Hmmmmmmm - Scotrail sleepers? Cheers, Mick Thats one good reason for collecting all those 37/4's, May yet hear the rasp of tractors once again round Horseshoe Rgds Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Never mind all the important business details - what everybody wants to know is : what colour will they be...? Loadhaul.... (ducks and runs...) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supaned Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Large Logo blue (my lordz etc etc...) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve fay Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 It looks like a 2012 class 67 GTi styled by pinin farrera (spelt correctly?) I quite like it any one out there could do a bit of photo shop wizzardry and put it DRS. I bet Bachmann are falling over them selves to do this! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium newbryford Posted January 5, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 5, 2012 I bet Bachmann are falling over them selves to do this! Hornby now have themselves a nice shiny 4-axle chassis................. Can I start a Hornby 2014 speculation thread? Cheers, Mick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornish Triang Paul Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Is it a little strange they have gone for the heavier axle load of a bo-bo rather than a co-co ?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Is it a little strange they have gone for the heavier axle load of a bo-bo rather than a co-co ?? Curves? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulbb Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Looks like the business case for this engine(the class 68) is based around getting a state of the art passenger loco to replace old maintenance heavy 47's on the charter work, and release expensive to lease 66's from the intermodal work, givingg them a competitive edge; if they work out, then the 57's and 37's will release the last of the 20's which the heritage lines will snap up, if only for spares. So one class will eventually replace 2 old ones and an expensive one Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerces Fobe2 Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Great to see DRS getting some new locos; I hope they are more aesthetically pleasing than the Class 67 and Class 70. The name Vossloh Eurolights sounds more like a packet of fags and is a bit of an oxymoron given the locomotives axle weight!. I wonder if Chiltern might consider getting some of these locos for their London - Birmingham service? XF Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frobisher Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Is it a little strange they have gone for the heavier axle load of a bo-bo rather than a co-co ?? It could be the same reason that the 67 is a B0-B0 rather than a C0-C0. It needed to have 125mph rated bogies and there were no UK cleared ones that were available at a price that they were willing to pay (there had been discussions about licensing the design that was under the class 89, but the costs were rather extortionate (£1M+ per loco by all accounts...). It looks like these beasties have the same bogie design as the 67. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Is it a little strange they have gone for the heavier axle load of a bo-bo rather than a co-co ?? It could be the same reason that the 67 is a B0-B0 rather than a C0-C0. It needed to have 125mph rated bogies and there were no UK cleared ones that were available at a price that they were willing to pay (there had been discussions about licensing the design that was under the class 89, but the costs were rather extortionate (£1M+ per loco by all accounts...). It looks like these beasties have the same bogie design as the 67. Yes, Co-Co bogies rated at 90mph + seem a little rare these days. As a matter of interest, have DRS disclosed the maximum speed these Eurolights will be rated at ? I'm wondering whether being geared for 100mph max might give just a little more grunt than the 125ph rating of the DC traction motored class 67. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaffsOatcake Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 It will be interesting to see how they shrink that to fit the UK Loading Gauge (or are DRS, our only state owned rail freight operator, moving into Europe in the same way that European mainland companies have moved into Britain?). I agree with you Station Master, from the images they look as they will never fit within the UK Kinetic envelope/Loading gauge. All those cooling matrix's on the roof look like they will come a cropper the first time they run one along the route from Carlisle to Sellafield. They had to redesign the 67's to make them fit and then ended up re-springing them so they could get them of the docks once they had built them and these things look far bigger than the skips Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
298 Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Not sure it's *specifically* for passenger use - Freightliner manages with 4-axle loco's (90s) singly on it's intermodals so maybe that's the thinking. Pretty sure i'd prefer the extra couple of powered axles a 66 gives if you have a long intermodal on a wet and windy night on the Northern fells though. They'll handle half an FNA with ease as well. 66's will always struggle over the hills whatever the weather, where a pair of 86's or a 92 will fly over them. DRS must be looking at the Scotrail sleeper contract, or will be once they announce an order for a few Bombardier Traxx or something.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 But these will have no more power than the 66 but fewer axles so at least at first glance lower adhesion...I was suggesting they may not equal a 66 due to that... 15 machines is way too much for *purely* the diesel part of the scottish sleeper contract! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin_m Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Adhesion is down to weight, not directly to the number of axles (though a loco with more axles will usually be heavier). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted January 8, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 8, 2012 I agree with you Station Master, from the images they look as they will never fit within the UK Kinetic envelope/Loading gauge. All those cooling matrix's on the roof look like they will come a cropper the first time they run one along the route from Carlisle to Sellafield. They had to redesign the 67's to make them fit and then ended up re-springing them so they could get them of the docks once they had built them and these things look far bigger than the skips As best I can make out from the Vossloh drawing the loco appears to be 4.2 metres high which is within UIC A Gauge by 100mm but beyond the highest allowable part of British W9 by about 230mm and that's the highest part, it's far worse at cantrail height (or whatever it is called on this body profile) so there would seem to be a fair bit to take off the top. Alas what isn't clear from the Vossloh outline drawing is the width - apart from the fact that it continues at maximum body width down to well below British platform height. The only gauging information Vossloh give is that it is to UIC 505-1 but as far as I can ascertain that is not actually a loading gauge but a standard for establishing and measuring loading gauge and unfortunately the Vossloh data sheet doesn't give the overall width (in murky figures or otherwise). Vossloh - as they state UIC 505-1 compliance - should be able to suitably gauge the body structure etc to comply with an appropriate British Loading Gauge as the relevant UK document says how it should be done and EMD (with the Class 59 and 66) and GE have been able to do it successfully. But the Class 67 example, and the overall appearance of the loco, does leave a few questions marks in my mind. We shall no doubt find out in due time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold mcowgill Posted January 8, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 8, 2012 Quote from June 2011 Modern Railways. DRS says the design work to make the loco fir the UK loading gauge has been completed and the company is happy with the final results. However, the signing of the deal is dependant on the exchange rate between the pound and the euro becoming more favourable to make the purchase price acceptable. The locos will be RA7, 100mph and fitted with electric train supply and they are seen as ideal not only for the company's recently won "Northern Belle" contract with VSOE but also to allow the company to gain more passenger work. DRS says the locos will "outperform" anything currently in the market. The locos will also work freight when required. As already mentioned fairly early in this thread, the locos are for UK use, fit the UK loading gauge and are 100mph passenger locos. Martin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonhall Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 I'd been hoping for Vossloh G2000's Jon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
298 Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Adhesion is down to weight, not directly to the number of axles Not really, for example class 59's are lighter than 66's but their tractive effort is higher. There's more to adhesion than just weight, it's how the loco sits and how the bogie "kneels" when under power, and the sophisticated control system used to ensure maximum traction is maintained when needed by inducing a slight slip at the wheel/rail interface. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian daniels Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Not really, for example class 59's are lighter than 66's but their tractive effort is higher. There's more to adhesion than just weight, it's how the loco sits and how the bogie "kneels" when under power, and the sophisticated control system used to ensure maximum traction is maintained when needed by inducing a slight slip at the wheel/rail interface. I don't think one tonne less for a 59 in weight will make that much difference in pulling power. It helps that a 59 is only geared for 60mph against 75mph for a 66! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supaned Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 OT slightly , but I wonder if any of the UK freight operators will be tempted by the A-1-A technology currently finding favour in the US , where the middle axle is "lifted" slightly when taking power to maximise the weight and tractive effort when starting a train? Less motors equals less cost in purchase and maintenance , and the 3 axle arrangement lowers the axle loading. TBH , all this bluster about 125mph passenger locos is a bit of a red herring , unless the stock is entirely mark 3 or 4 in the correct formation , then that speed is unattainable, 110mph would be more than suitable for the majority of jobs , and probably if geared right allow for more tractive effort over the gain of a few extra mph in top speed - a passenger loco that loads up and accelerates quickly would be of more use than one with a headline top speed - if the sleeper trains mooted are taken into account , there are many speed restrictions applicable to 67s because of their axle loading , the ability to get away quickly from one of those would be much more useful than 125mph top end speed... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted January 8, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 8, 2012 OT slightly , but I wonder if any of the UK freight operators will be tempted by the A-1-A technology currently finding favour in the US , where the middle axle is "lifted" slightly when taking power to maximise the weight and tractive effort when starting a train? Less motors equals less cost in purchase and maintenance , and the 3 axle arrangement lowers the axle loading. Sounds like one defeats the object of the other as far as Route Availability is concerned because it is based on maximum axleloading - i.e what would apply when there are only 4 axles carrying the weight. The only advantage I can see is saving the weight of a traction motor - but you'd get an even bigger saving if you didn't have any traction motors at all and just final drives because at least that way you could avoid the loss of a driven axle. And 125 mph is definitely a red herring for sleeping car services Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 That A1A-A1A technology has been used in France since the late 1960s on the 68xxx diesels- apparently, it had a tendency to stick in the 'high' position, as a friend of mine found out when taking a heavy train from Dieppe. It didn't do much for the track.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWJ Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 ...you'd get an even bigger saving if you didn't have any traction motors at all and just final drives because at least that way you could avoid the loss of a driven axle. Ey up, is there a Great Western man in the room by any chance? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.