Tri-mode locomotives Class 93

I`m really looking forward to see these locomotives. It`s a smaller version of the EuroDual locomotives that in my view are beautiful designed ,especially the front with the shape of frontlights and the grill with the manufacturer`s logo STADLER in silver. Almost like a car!

And for us that like locomotives with sound it`s a plus that will be equipped with a CAT-engine like class 68/88

http://www.railvolution.net/news/class-93-locomotives-for-rail-operations-uk

Knut

 

It's taken a couple of years to get the order through. I wonder whether the STAR Capital takeover/capital injection is what's got it over the line.

I'm a 'know nothing' about these things but some things have made me ponder

It's reported to have 'around 1,800 hp (1,300 kW) of usable power' when running off the wires, with a 1,250 hp (900kW) diesel and 550 hp (400kW) battery. Two years ago it was quoted: "The hybrid offers 1,800hp usable power compared with the 1,300hp from a ‘37’, so it is roughly comparable to a ‘47’ on diesel” - I don't understand that comparison?

It doesn't say how long the battery will last at that output, before it goes back to diesel only.

It's a mixed traffic machine, geared for 110mph. Class 87s and 90s managed it under the wires, but a Class 37 (or Class 25 on diesel only?) equivalent with that gearing for off wires use isn't going to compete with the loads that a 66 would haul. That rules out, for example, Felixstowe or Southampton to the Midlands?

All info welcome

Patrick

 

It's reported to have 'around 1,800 hp (1,300 kW) of usable power' when running off the wires, with a 1,250 hp (900kW) diesel and 550 hp (400kW) battery. Two years ago it was quoted: "The hybrid offers 1,800hp usable power compared with the 1,300hp from a ‘37’, so it is roughly comparable to a ‘47’ on diesel” - I don't understand that comparison?

Also a 37/47 has 3 axles per bogie to help with starting, and braking force, seems to offer all the benefits of hybrid, but might be difficult to operate??

 

I've read some of the blurb and am no less confused. Difficulty of operation, I'm guessing, will come down to how automated and seamless the 'mode change' process is.

The thing which bothers me with today's gee-whizzery is how EMP-proof all these clever electronics are. It'd be bl**dy annoying - to put it mildly - if the wrong star explodinged* 300 years ago stuffed up our entire planet's communications!

*no? .... well you think of an appropriate tense then!

 

Modern rolling stock and signalling is comparatively well protected against stray currents and induced electromagnetic pulses. Would a star going "bang" 300 light years away create enough of an EMP? I suspect solar flares from the Sun are a greater danger.
Parts of the railway industry learnt its lesson the hard way with the class 92's which could easily drop into safety mode ( ie : OFF) by drawing power across a 3rd rail insulated joint between 660v and 750v. The work around was tell the drivers which track paralleling huts they had to coast past and all was OK. The technological solution took a lot longer and was eventually overtaken by power supply upgrading with inner London routes energised at 750v.

Cheers, Neil

 

I am out of touch with modern freight operations, but when freightliners from Felixstowe for the WCML ran via the NLL back in the '80s and '90s they were normally worked as far as Willesden by pairs of 37s. I think that much installed horsepower was needed in order to keep out of the way of the passenger service on the shared sections. This was in the day of trains going North from Willesden behind pairs of 86s.

 

I stepped back from freight operations / timetable planning from 2008. From the late 1990's some Freightliner services were hauled by pairs of 86's to and from Ipswich. As the GE power supply upgrades continued more trains went over to electric haulage with class 90's. The 86's struggled over Brentwood bank in the leaf fall season and single class 66's with sanding gear kept time better.

All very well until engineering works and diversions via Ely, which meant FL were looking for extra class 66's for the diverted trains.

Cheers, Neil

 

I'm guessing here, but I think it works like this:
1,800 hp continuous from the overhead;
1,250 hp continuous from the donkey engine;
1,250 + 550 (=1,800) hp short term from the donkey plus the battery. (My Toyota Yaris uses the same principle.)

As to the Class 37 power quoted, I suspect a degree of comparing apples and oranges. I doubt that the on-board power consumption of a 37 is as much as 450 hp; equally I don't see any reference to such power in the 93.
Modern traction control makes the likes of Class 37 look positively Stone Age, in particular the AC motors which tend to be self-protecting from wheel-slip.

It's a shame that a quad-mode isn't feasible, as the 93 is a non-starter for freight from Southampton.

Pat

 

Depends on the nature of the star and which way it's pointing. The 'Oh Pooh!' distance I've seen bandied about is 60LY, though quite what that's based on, I don't know.

The inbuilt resilience to EMPs isn't something I've heard too much about, beyond it being conspicuously absent following a CME which hit Canada and the north-eastern US, over 40 years ago now.

 

One thing I've occasionally wondered (speaking of Southampton), since the GWML has been at least somewhat electrified, is whether electrification of the Basingstoke-Reading line would actually open up any useful freight routes to a 92 or 92-like 25kV/750V electric (assuming last mile shunters or a bit of further fill-in electrification into docks).

 

There used to be 3rd rail into the Western Docks, but it was disconnected sometime in the early 2000's. Stopping to change locos for the last mile would be costly in time and staff. That's why European open access operators are buying multi voltage locos with a small diesel engine for entering and departing from sidings. Also a number of container trains are routed via Romsey, Laverstock Spur and Andover each day to maintain route knowledge for overnight and weekend engineering works.

On safety grounds , 3rd rail into the crane area with staff working around wagons wouldn't be approved. That's why the Southern Region built electro diesels.

The next challenge is to get an ac/dc/battery/ diesel multimode loco built within the size of a class 66 and the same RA7 axle loading. ( Also a nice to have enough space to fit TVM432 to work over HS1 and for ECTS which is coming to the LNE within a few years.) The next stage is really hard, getting DB C/ FL Intermodal / GBRf to think they want to buy it!

Cheers, Neil

 

I worked in the Western Docks from 1998 (the first train after re-opening) to my retirement in 2017. There was no juice rail inside Dock Gate 12.
Pat

 

If you take a diesel-electric design, of whatever power, does adding the gubbins for running the motors from OHL and/or third rail add much to the weight? At one time 25 kV needed a big iron-cored step-down transformer but I would expect that to be done by much lighter weight electronics nowadays.

 

A feature in the Rail Engineer.

https://www.railengineer.co.uk/rail-operations-orders-30-new-stadler-class-93-tri-mode-locos/

Note the link in the article as well.
https://www.railengineer.co.uk/re-engineering-rail-freight/

 

I was wondering that. There is a lot of equipment to be packed into it.

 

Transformers are a few tonnes, but are probably smaller than previously.

The equipment isn't too bad. Most modern electric units have the 25kV AC stepped down to 750V DC, which is then inverted back into whatever AC supply is required - motors, internal lights, control systems, etc. So to run off third rail, you basically have a changeover switch before the equipment, meaning it's either receiving 750V DC from the transformer output or from the third rail. I would imagine the alternator would also controlled and rectified to give out 750V DC, meaning only one lot of equipment would needed, no matter what the initial power source is.

 

What's the RA of these things? Unless they are much lighter than they look, they seem like a very complex way of achieving a marginal power increase on a 37 at the expense of poor route availability, which seems somewhat pointless? Maybe they will be a great success, but I wouldn't be shocked if years after these have gone for scrap there are still various 12CSVT's doing the RA5 stuff haulage on the network, and class 66s doing pretty much all the rest.

 

The second of the Rail Engineer links above gives 86 tonnes and an RA of 7.

To me the downsides in the 93 in self-powered mode as a means of replacing 66s are:

There's a quoted capability of hauling 1,500 tonnes on non-electrified routes but a lack of grunt. Peak power is 1,300kW for up to ten minutes at a stretch, otherwise it's 900kW (1,207hp).
Will the 400kW batteries deliver that in service? I thought batteries were used in the 20-80% range for longevity?
It's geared for mixed traffic, 110 mph running.

To get to RA5 you'd have to lose ~10 tonnes or go to Co-Co, but that's another question!

Patrick

 

Thanks for these links. They quote a power of 4000KW (about 5360 HP) for the Class 93 operating from OHL - so no shortage of "grunt" in that mode of operation.

 

The design philosophy seems to be similar to that for BRs original electr0-diesels, but all scaled up somewhat. Plenty of power for a heavy train at moderate speed or a light train at high speed on electrified lines, and enough to potter along at reduced speed elsewhere. The lower power away from the wires matters only on non-electrified lines with fast passenger trains. There aren't too many of those, and presumably these locos will mostly not be rostered for those routes.