Possiblility of Bi Mode Locos for TPE and Night Riviera could cause cascades of stock elsewhere

[Bletchleyite]

Time doesn't really matter on the CS, the shunting happens in the middle of the night so the disruption it causes inside of the station isn't really a problem and the CS doesn't need to be quick about it.

Exactly. Sleeper operations are totally different from daytime operations. In daytime operations, speed is of the essence. In overnight operations on an island as small as ours, wasting time is essentially a virtue as it makes the service more useful, as people can get a proper night's sleep. The Edinburgh shunt takes less time than you'd sit there for anyway.

Back onto TPE, not really sure why they are going with bimode locos given their mk5a problems.

I guess they must be confident of resolving the problems. Which is good news.

 

[hooverboy]

Not likely. The spec was slightly too low on horses but certainly could be upgraded version as the tech exists in other countries.



Apologies, that's what I got for reading it too quickly. It's actually 20 to 35. Not sure where the potential need is for the extra unless they were hired to Serco to get rid of the 73s which haven't proved quite as good as they looked on paper, albeit hidden by use of a 66 or second 73 on trains that were originally booked single locos. In fact with bi mode you could save on 92s too if course.

This is likely where stadler will offer the caterpillar c32b triple turbo engine option.
It's about 20 percent more power output than the initial c32b offering proposed for the present CL93 ,( 0.9MW).So c32b TT is 1.08MW ,weighing in around 1400HP,plus the 400kw battery bank, which may or may not get upgraded to solid state if the technology permits.

That gives you about the equivalent of a class 47 on diesel, when traction control efficiency is factored in.

The other option would be a newer design CO-CO class 95, which potential future freight operators would likely prefer,and would be more beneficial for re-leasing for the ROSCO.

I seem to recall hearing (from a semi-official source?) that 68s might be long-term replacement options for 67s on TfW's loco-hauled services. TfW have since acquired additional MkIV rakes, too.

If that were to happen, then it'd raise the question of where the 67s would be cascaded to, of course.

I think in that instance class 67's will go for scrap.Failing that they will be sat idle or on thunderbird duties somewhere.
They aren't the most useful of locomotives.

The 73's shouldn't be struggling, they have 1600hp. I doubt that the new locos will have that much more on diesel due to lack of physical space (as suffered in the 88 and 93) within the loco. Add to that the weight issues that come with a big engine and cooler group and you either a) have a massively over weight loco, or b) a Co-Co design but then that goes back to the bogie issue.

What's the class 93, 88 tonnes? By the time they add a bigger engine, cooler group, fuel tanks etc. you suddenly end up with an over weight lump, on a Bo-Bo that is. Same issue with the CNR, needs a lot of power, but is also restricted with weight.

The 73's are also lightweight bo-bo.
They are in some ways a bonus for minimising rail wear and low axle load routes, but bo-bo is not great for the highland lines with low adhesion.

CL93 is reported to be something like 88 tonnnes, but 22T/Axle is a lot, and the bo bo configuration is still susceptible to low adhesion.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

This is likely where stadler will offer the caterpillar c32b triple turbo engine option.
It's about 20 percent more power output than the initial c32b offering proposed for the present CL93 ,( 0.9MW).So c32b TT is 1.08MW ,weighing in around 1400HP,plus the 400kw battery bank, which may or may not get upgraded to solid state if the technology permits.

That gives you about the equivalent of a class 47 on diesel, when traction control efficiency is factored in.

The other option would be a newer design CO-CO class 95, which potential future freight operators would likely prefer,and would be more beneficial for re-leasing for the ROSCO.

No it doesn't, if the C32B is 1.08mMW and the battery is 0.4MW that gives you 1.48MW before efficiency losses, no where near a Class 47.

Class 47 = 1.92MW
C32B + Battery = 1.48MW

No effiecenty gain is going to make up almost 0.5MW. The best option is surely a Co-Co design to prevent being overweight and allow a bigger a bigger engine.

The 73's are also lightweight bo-bo.
They are in some ways a bonus for minimising rail wear and low axle load routes, but bo-bo is not great for the highland lines with low adhesion.

CL93 is reported to be something like 88 tonnnes, but 22T/Axle is a lot, and the bo bo configuration is still susceptible to low adhesion.

No one wants to pay to design a 100mph Co-Co bogie thats the problem, hence the 67 is Bo-Bo.

 

[hwl]

Also AIUI the engines were ‘pre loved’ and reconditioned.

Depending on the batch either US or Mexican Navy tug boat engines that were surplus and had cut and shut jobs done on the blocks to remove 4/8 cylinders from the middle.

 

[MattRat]

This is likely where stadler will offer the caterpillar c32b triple turbo engine option.
It's about 20 percent more power output than the initial c32b offering proposed for the present CL93 ,( 0.9MW).So c32b TT is 1.08MW ,weighing in around 1400HP,plus the 400kw battery bank, which may or may not get upgraded to solid state if the technology permits.

That gives you about the equivalent of a class 47 on diesel, when traction control efficiency is factored in.

The other option would be a newer design CO-CO class 95, which potential future freight operators would likely prefer,and would be more beneficial for re-leasing for the ROSCO.

I think in that instance class 67's will go for scrap.Failing that they will be sat idle or on thunderbird duties somewhere.
They aren't the most useful of locomotives.


The 73's are also lightweight bo-bo.
They are in some ways a bonus for minimising rail wear and low axle load routes, but bo-bo is not great for the highland lines with low adhesion.

CL93 is reported to be something like 88 tonnnes, but 22T/Axle is a lot, and the bo bo configuration is still susceptible to low adhesion.

I'm pretty certain there's locos older than the 67s that they could replace.

As for the 73s, I don't see the reason for semantic arguments for what they are or aren't capable of. Replacing them shouldn't just be a priority to improve the service, it should also be about them replacing even older stock, like the 37s. Particularly becuase I don't see 73s going anywhere from the network, since there isn't a true replacement on the horizon. What the replacement is (for the sleepers), now that's the real debate.

 

[hwl]

The 92's are getting older and will need replacing at somepoint, that's why. This new type of loco will likley have at least 5000hp on OHLE so will manage 16 coaches no problem. Through working isn't needed, but it makes sense.

A Co-Co will be heading toward 8,000hp on AC if the builders are also targeting the design for future freight sales too. A1A would be fine for passenger use (and still over 5,300HP if sharing the same core components).

No it doesn't, if the C32B is 1.08mMW and the battery is 0.4MW that gives you 1.48MW before efficiency losses, no where near a Class 47.

Class 47 = 1.92MW
C32B + Battery = 1.48MW

No effiecenty gain is going to make up almost 0.5MW. The best option is surely a Co-Co design to prevent being overweight and allow a bigger a bigger engine.

No one wants to pay to design a 100mph Co-Co bogie thats the problem, hence the 67 is Bo-Bo.

EMD/Stadler effectively have done as the new EMD US loco 3 axles bogies are made for them in Spain by Stadler (substantially lighter and cheaper than the older cast steel bogies).

 

[hooverboy]

No it doesn't, if the C32B is 1.08mMW and the battery is 0.4MW that gives you 1.48MW before efficiency losses, no where near a Class 47.

Class 47 = 1.92MW
C32B + Battery = 1.48MW

No effiecenty gain is going to make up almost 0.5MW. The best option is surely a Co-Co design to prevent being overweight and allow a bigger a bigger engine.

No one wants to pay to design a 100mph Co-Co bogie thats the problem, hence the 67 is Bo-Bo.

When you factor in the modern traction control systems the C32B TT+Battery will come in quite close to a CL47 in terms of power at rail.
The marine version of that particular engine can give a power output of 2400BHP, the de-rating is due to the need for circulated coolant rather than pumping seawater.

Stadler did offer DRS the option of Co-Co in the class 88's if I remeber correctly, so they do have such a bogie not only designed,but in production.
It is just lacking type approval on the UK network

 

[Energy]

Exactly. Sleeper operations are totally different from daytime operations. In daytime operations, speed is of the essence. In overnight operations on an island as small as ours, wasting time is essentially a virtue as it makes the service more useful, as people can get a proper night's sleep. The Edinburgh shunt takes less time than you'd sit there for anyway.

Caledonian Sleeper also needs cheap locomotives as its far from profitable. Its lucky it got new mk5s rather than refurbish the mk3s and replacing mk2s with mk3s from Anglia. Night Riviera runs with refurbished mk3s.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

A Co-Co will be heading toward 8,000hp on AC if the builders are also targeting the design for future freight sales too. A1A would be fine for passenger use (and still over 5,300HP if sharing the same core components).


EMD/Stadler effectively have done as the new EMD US loco 3 axles bogies are made for them in Spain by Stadler (substantially lighter and cheaper than the older cast steel bogies).

Would they be passed for use over here though? I am not familiar with how bogies are developed and certified.

When you factor in the modern traction control systems the C32B TT+Battery will come in quite close to a CL47 in terms of power at rail.
The marine version of that particular engine can give a power output of 2400BHP, the de-rating is due to the need for circulated coolant rather than pumping seawater.

Stadler did offer DRS the option of Co-Co in the class 88's if I remeber correctly, so they do have such a bogie not only designed,but in production.
It is just lacking type approval on the UK network

No they won't, it's not possible.

A Class 47's power at the rail at 80% efficiency is more than this new locos total before before efficency losses. The maths just doesn't stack up. The marine verison may give 2400hp, but thats in a very differant industry with better cooling and more space. Rail usage is a particularly difficult environment due to the lack of space.

And that is the problem, will it get UK approval?

Caledonian Sleeper also needs cheap locomotives as its far from profitable. Its lucky it got new mk5s rather than refurbish the mk3s and replacing mk2s with mk3s from Anglia. Night Riviera runs with refurbished mk3s.

It got new mk5's because it's a poltical case now, that's why. The CNR doesn't have this privilage.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Deadline for bids 21st Feb, delivery expected to be over a 6 month period to 20th Aug 2022.

This delivery period appears to be a tad on the optimistic side...?

 

[MattRat]

Caledonian Sleeper also needs cheap locomotives as its far from profitable. Its lucky it got new mk5s rather than refurbish the mk3s and replacing mk2s with mk3s from Anglia. Night Riviera runs with refurbished mk3s.

It does seem like GWR decided on new trains instead of new carriages, and Serco did the opposite. Perhaps this might work out for the best though, as GWR getting rid of 57s frees them up to replace the 73s.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

@hooverboy Another thing to consider is that the engine must be Euro V complient. Is this the case for the C32B?

 

[Elecman]

This delivery period appears to be a tad on the optimistic side...?

Agreed

 

[Charlie Smythe]

Agreed

Surely its impossible to meet, no?

Perhaps this might work out for the best though, as GWR getting rid of 57s frees them up to replace the 73s.

Class 57's replacing Class 73's? I think not. One is 20 years old since overhaul the other is 5 years old.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Does it not make sense to have a single fleet where any loco can do any part of the service?

A single fleet for who ?. Caledonian sleeper hire in the locomotives they use from GBRF. The 92s can be used in common with other GBRF work. The 73s can be used in common with other GBRF work. The 66s that are used come from a vast (100 and growing) pool of GBRF 66s.

A new all singing all dancing Bi-Mode locomotive for CS would need to work for all the other GBRF operations. Even if not it means an electric locomotive with a big enough diesel engine. How heavy ? and how near to the limit on route availability North of the central lowlands of Scotland would it then be ?, If it is to be a GBRF locomotive then it has to be 3,000 Hp on diesel. Do GBRF really need to ditch over 100 Class 66s and their 92s & 73s for a heavy Co-Co ?.

This delivery period appears to be a tad on the optimistic side...?

Amazingly tight.

Makes me wonder if it is possible that this is just a chance to find out how much and how available Bi-Mode locomotives might be compared to replacing the Mk5s with more 802s ?. The 802s are more likely to be available quicker as they are an off the shelf design.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

A single fleet for who ?. Caledonian sleeper hire in the locomotives they use from GBRF. The 92s can be used in common with other GBRF work. The 73s can be used in common with other GBRF work. The 66s that are used come from a vast (100 and growing) pool of GBRF 66s.

A new all singing all dancing Bi-Mode locomotive for CS would need to work for all the other GBRF operations. Even if not it means an electric locomotive with a big enough diesel engine. How heavy ? and how near to the limit on route availability North of the central lowlands of Scotland would it then be ?, If it is to be a GBRF locomotive then it has to be 3,000 Hp on diesel. Do GBRF really need to ditch over 100 Class 66s and their 92s & 73s for a heavy Co-Co ?.


Amazingly tight.

Makes me wonder if it is possible that this is just a chance to find out how much and how available Bi-Mode locomotives might be compared to replacing the Mk5s with more 802s ?. The 802s are more likely to be available quicker as they are an off the shelf design.

What do you do with all those nice new Mk5's then?

 

[37424]

In the last direct award GWR it was stated that GWR are required to look and into and build a case for replacement stock and locomotives for the CNR. This development comes as no suprise and no, I don't think it is a case of the Night Riviera only surviving while the stock does. The fact that it was in the direct award tells me that someone somewhere is serious about it continuing.

Why on earth would TPE bin off the 397's? And no, maybe it wouldn't when you already have a brand new set of mk5 coaching stock sitting around. Loco hauled makes sense these days.

Not really a fleet of Bi-mode 802's makes more sense and I'm not suggesting the 397's are going that's speculated by others

 

[Charlie Smythe]

Not really a fleet of Bi-mode 802's makes more sense and I'm not suggesting the 397's are going that's speculated by others

A fleet of 802's doesn't make sense when you already have Mk5's though does it? Only option is if you could find someone else willing to take on the mk5's.

 

[MattRat]

Class 57's replacing Class 73's? I think not. One is 20 years old since overhaul the other is 5 years old.

I can't seem to find information backing up your claim.

 

[37424]

A fleet of 802's doesn't make sense when you already have Mk5's though does it? Only option is if you could find someone else willing to take on the mk5's.

Depends if TPE can find a way of terminating the lease at reasonable cost, then its not their problem the leasing company will have to sort it, but all accounts the Dft are calling the shots on the rolling stock front now anyway so it may depend what they want, and TPE are probably just doing what they have been told. Could try the welsh for the MK5's

 

[Charlie Smythe]

I can't seem to find information backing up your claim.

What do you mean? Someone is suggesting replacing 73's with 57's which wouldn't happen.

They're already far older then the 73's in terms of time since rebuild.

 

[47827]

.

I can't seem to find information backing up your claim.

The 57/6s were rebuilt from 47s less than 20 years ago but will be that age or over by the time these new designs could even leave the works. But it's highly unlikely they will be sold to anyone that will use them on daily passenger trains again. Only the likes of the main charter TOCs will probably even consider serious bids, with one probably having the cash to offer more.

From what I recall I think the 57s were only meant for about 15 to 20 years service tops as a cheaper alternative to new build. Some of them, mostly 57/0s, didn't last long enough to have justified being converted but the majority of the remainder will have reached the point where their lifespan was adequate.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

Depends if TPE can find a way of terminating the lease at reasonable cost, then its not their problem the leasing company will have to sort it, but all accounts the Dft are calling the shots on the rolling stock front now anyway so it may depend what they want, and TPE are probably just doing what they have been told. Could try the welsh for the MK5's

Stagecoach were looking at 68+Mk5's for the West of England line if they were to have won the SW franchise again but they obviously didn't. Other than that, you're proabably right with trying it on with the Welsh.

 

[MattRat]

What do you mean? Someone is suggesting replacing 73's with 57's which wouldn't happen.

That was me. Your claim was the 73s are somehow younger than the 57s, and I can't find anything to back up that claim.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

That was me. Your claim was the 73s are somehow younger than the 57s, and I can't find anything to back up that claim.

The 57's were rebuilt in the early 2000's for Virgin trains but the 73's were rebuilt for GBRF in 2016. The 73's are younger and (should) be more reliable, fuel efficient and of course produce less emissions.

 

[Peter Sarf]

What do you do with all those nice new Mk5's then?

How nice are those Mk5s ?.

 

[JonathanH]

Stagecoach were looking at 68+Mk5's for the West of England line if they were to have won the SW franchise again but they obviously didn't.

Is there a source for that? It sounds quite unlikely as it would both waste platform capacity with a locomotive and not fit the way the line has been operated for the last 30 years.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

How nice are those Mk5s ?.

Nicer than the mk3's, that's for sure.

Is there a source for that? It sounds quite unlikely as it would both waste platform capacity with a locomotive and not fit the way the line has been operated for the last 30 years.

I read it on a forum a few years back and am currently hunting for it.

 

[47827]

Nicer than the mk3's, that's for sure.


I read it on a forum a few years back and am currently hunting for it.

Believe, from many who've used them, the ride quality and sleep comfort for the majority was better in mk3 sleepers BUT a few certainly prefer the mk5 ones. The facilities and gadget provision are better on the new stock plus some folk prefer the aesthetics. I've only used Mk3s so can't personally give experience and not as many times as I would like. They did the job nicely though, especially Inverness to Euston in the summer of 95.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Nicer than the mk3's, that's for sure.

It is the TPE Mk5s that would be surplus. How do the Mk5s compare to an 802 reliability and comfort wise ?.