Ultra 73s

[Domh245]

Um, so I was looking at snapper's site earlier and I saw this: http://paulbigland.zenfolio.com/p119809187/h3d4f2f9a#h24ffe9ec

So I was wondering if anyone could point me in the direction of some more information about it

Also, I hope I wasn't the only person who opening seeing it, though "Blimey that is F-Ugly"

 

[cjmillsnun]

Here you go. This was the original press release for the project.

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...repowered-class-73-to-roll-out-next-year.html

And TBH I've seen much uglier.

The cab environment looks nice

 

[cossie4i]

That could almost take the 70's fugly crown

 

[61653 HTAFC]

That could almost take the 70's fugly crown

It'll take some getting used to, for sure! They've actually succeeded in making it look about 40 years older than it really is...

Is that SWT seat covering in the cab new (they had it lying around maybe), or a 'legacy' thing?

 

[bigdelboy]

Um, so I was looking at snapper's site earlier and I saw this: http://paulbigland.zenfolio.com/p119809187/h3d4f2f9a#h24ffe9ec

So I was wondering if anyone could point me in the direction of some more information about it

Also, I hope I wasn't the only person who opening seeing it, though "Blimey that is F-Ugly"

Looking at the link http://paulbigland.zenfolio.com/p119809187 there appears to be a little background indicating the unveiling was on friday 13th (2014) and the rebuild is substantially complete with two cummins at about 1600hp (Perhaps related to the doors with the handles on the side?) and track testing expected in the autumn ...

And it does look a little not right ... Perhaps they ought to repaint it green fairly quick ... and it looks a little bare without the bagpipes ....

 

[NSEFAN]

I wonder how these will look in the Serco Sleeper livery...

 

[rf_ioliver]

Um, so I was looking at snapper's site earlier and I saw this: http://paulbigland.zenfolio.com/p119809187/h3d4f2f9a#h24ffe9ec

So I was wondering if anyone could point me in the direction of some more information about it

Also, I hope I wasn't the only person who opening seeing it, though "Blimey that is F-Ugly"

Actually I think it looks quite fine...certainly not as ugly as the Class 70 (or 313, 380 etc)

t.

Ian

 

[Monty]

The GBRf rebuilds will look conventional, as they will be keeping all their pipes and jumper leads/multiple working equipment etc. Though you may find all that equipment may find it's way back on to the NR examples.

 

[LBSCR Times]

It would look fine if it wasn't for the bright yellow colour and the lettering on the side.

 

[Boothby97]

I wonder how these will look in the Serco Sleeper livery...

These are Network Rail 73s (which are being re-engined at Derby RTC), the GBRf 73s (which are being re-engined at Loughborough Brush) are rumoured to end up seeing use on the Caledonian Sleeper.

 

[ac6000cw]

Looking at the link http://paulbigland.zenfolio.com/p119809187 there appears to be a little background indicating the unveiling was on friday 13th (2014) and the rebuild is substantially complete with two cummins at about 1600hp (Perhaps related to the doors with the handles on the side?) and track testing expected in the autumn ...

And it does look a little not right ... Perhaps they ought to repaint it green fairly quick ... and it looks a little bare without the bagpipes ....

It will actually be rated at 1500hp on diesel (2 x 750hp QSK19). In concept, it's a UK version of a US 'Gen-Set' locomotive - e.g. http://www.nationalrailway.com/loco...es/2gs-14b_n-viromotive-2gs-14b-ulel-switcher - with added 3rd rail capability.

 

[3141]

I think the long, tall, flat side section between the cabs looks very plain. The cabs and the ends look like class 73 (unsurprisingly). For ugliness, the class 70s are still miles ahead.

 

[bronzeonion]

What on earth is that cab! Tram style controls seem to be all the rage atm with the 68 and that 700 thing!


I take it theyre gonna re-fit the buckeye as the rubbing plate is still in place and the pin to hold it up is dangling!

 

[High Dyke]

No...just looks weird without the centre H/C box. Perhaps if the new light units didn't stick out so far it wouldn't seem so bad either. Too much yellow now...and to think BR Blue got criticism when first applied...

 

[al.currie93]

GBRf 73s (which are being re-engined at Loughborough Brush) are rumoured to end up seeing use on the Caledonian Sleeper.

Hang on, seriously? If so, I'm quite surprised!

 

[route:oxford]

Hang on, seriously? If so, I'm quite surprised!

They do sound ideal to be honest.

Two engines for redundancy on long single track sections will be helpful.

 

[cjmillsnun]

They do sound ideal to be honest.

Two engines for redundancy on long single track sections will be helpful.

Don't think the GBRf ones will have 2 engines IIRC. I thought they were having one MTU engine instead.

 

[Boothby97]

Hang on, seriously? If so, I'm quite surprised!

As I say only a rumour. Should be for the diesel sections (Edinburgh-Fort William/Inverness/Aberdeen).

 

[asylumxl]

As I say only a rumour. Should be for the diesel sections (Edinburgh-Fort William/Inverness/Aberdeen).

If true it would give credibility to the talk of moving sleeper trains to Waterloo.

Having said that, without a source I doubt the credibility of any rumours.

 

[Helvellyn]

Plan for the Sleepers is for GBRf Class 92's to operate Euston-Edinburgh-Glasgow, with GBRf Class 73's (re-engineered with a single new MTU engine) to operate the Edinburgh-Fort William, Edinburgh-Inverness and Edinburgh-Aberdeen legs.

 

[carriageline]

I wonder if they will still be serviced, and kept at a wembley during the day? I would imagine so as I can't think of anywhere else, except somewhere off route!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[D365]

Plan for the Sleepers is for GBRf Class 92s to operate Euston-Edinburgh-Glasgow, with GBRf Class 73s (re-engineered with a single new MTU engine) to operate the Edinburgh-Fort William, Edinburgh-Inverness and Edinburgh-Aberdeen legs.

Why are they going for 73s rather than any other diesel engine? All I can think of is that they've got a plan going for their third-rail capabilities...

I say that, but I just noticed that a 92 will replace a 90 in the formation, the former sporting third-rail traction (and Channel Tunnel 'two-in-one' electric redundancy) anyway. Kind of a shame that it wouldn't be feasible to fit out these Class 92s with equivalent MTUs, right?

 

[route:oxford]

Why are they going for 73s rather than any other diesel engine? All I can think of is that they've got a plan going for their third-rail capabilities...

I say that, but I just noticed that a 92 will replace a 90 in the formation, the former sporting third-rail traction (and Channel Tunnel 'two-in-one' electric redundancy) anyway. Kind of a shame that it wouldn't be feasible to fit out these Class 92s with equivalent MTUs, right?

Short of re-engining a 26, 27 or 37 with a more fuel efficient engine - there isn't really much option.

As it stands, the 73s were being upgraded anyway, so there is economy of scale with a bigger batch.

 

[Boothby97]

I wonder if they will still be serviced, and kept at a wembley during the day? I would imagine so as I can't think of anywhere else, except somewhere off route!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I doubt it, as the furthest south the 73s will go on the sleeper will be Edinburgh.
I assume it'll be a similar situation to the DB 67s at present, with moves to/from the Home Depot on an as required basis. If so, I assume they'll be maintained at St Leonard's (Hastings), where at present the 'standard' GBRf 73s are maintained.

 

[al.currie93]

Wow, well if it's true, great to see the Class 73 being used! Great locomotives

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Will we see any here down south as rescue locos for Desiros and 456s?

 

[ac6000cw]

Plan for the Sleepers is for GBRf Class 92's to operate Euston-Edinburgh-Glasgow, with GBRf Class 73's (re-engineered with a single new MTU engine) to operate the Edinburgh-Fort William, Edinburgh-Inverness and Edinburgh-Aberdeen legs.

I can believe the 92's (which have standard ETH capability), but I think the 73's have never had standard ETH (only the 750V SR EMU compatible version, and then possibly only when operating from 3rd rail), so the rebuilds would need standard ETH (from diesel) adding to the spec. (or a revival of the sleeper generator van idea). And you would need a pair of them to match the power of a 67....

 

[DY444]

I can believe the 92's (which have standard ETH capability), but I think the 73's have never had standard ETH (only the 750V SR EMU compatible version, and then possibly only when operating from 3rd rail), so the rebuilds would need standard ETH (from diesel) adding to the spec. (or a revival of the sleeper generator van idea). And you would need a pair of them to match the power of a 67....

Although there is a standing instruction that the Class 92 ETS must not be used so if the intention is to use these locomotives then the reason for the prohibition (which I don't know) will need to be addressed.

I'm also struggling to see how the reworked Class 73 is going to have sufficient power to work an 8 car sleeper over the Highland Line even without providing an ets supply. if there is any credence to this story at all then it seems to me they will need a pair.

 

[ac6000cw]

Although there is a standing instruction that the Class 92 ETS must not be used so if the intention is to use these locomotives then the reason for the prohibition (which I don't know) will need to be addressed.

I'm also struggling to see how the reworked Class 73 is going to have sufficient power to work an 8 car sleeper over the Highland Line even without providing an ets supply. if there is any credence to this story at all then it seems to me they will need a pair.

According to this article - http://www.class90electriclocogroup.co.uk/history_intro.html - there have been some 92 ETS tests in the recent past:

"I can report (at the time of writing in November 2013) several 92s have now been fitted with ETS equipment notable examples include 92031. This loco had its ETS tested back in August 2009, but failed on first attempt. A further test session ran in February 2010 using stock from Cargo-D which proved successful. However, the idea of using 92s on the sleepers to replace the 90s has gone quiet and is currently on the back burner."

....so I suspect that sorting out the 92 ETS issue isn't an insurmountable problem (they were designed to be able to haul the NightStar sleepers originally, which had high ETS loading).

But yes, I suspect the 73's on sleepers is/was someone floating an idea rather than a serious proposal. Serco might just be talking to GBRf about traction possibilties as a way of getting a decent deal out of DBS for hiring 90s + 67s...

 

[DEAN MURPHY]

The first picture!