ASLEF Fear "Terrible" Class 73

[bigdelboy]

.....
One thing that I don't think anyone has touched on...
How likely is it that part of this whole... "fear" is not down to just locomotive age/performance etc... and in thencase of the 73s, be down to the more... spartan drivers cab on the 73 compared to the more modern 67s cab?. I mean drivers conditions is part of what ASLEF are meant to fight for, isn't it

I think I referred on my earlier post I had seen somewhere RVEL had gone to some trouble to agree an ergonomic 73 cab design on their 7395x conversion .... I also postulated Brush might not have updated the cab in their conversion. From a frontal persective of course the brush 7396x seem money like an unshaven male to face to the unreal uncluttered artifical botoxed smoothness of the 7395x ....

 

[cj_1985]

I think I referred on my earlier post I had seen somewhere RVEL had gone to some trouble to agree an ergonomic 73 cab design on their 7395x conversion .... I also postulated Brush might not have updated the cab in their conversion. From a frontal persective of course the brush 7396x seem money like an unshaven male to face to the unreal uncluttered artifical botoxed smoothness of the 7395x ....

Sorry. O must have missed your comment when i was skimming over the articles before i posted

 

[bigdelboy]

Sorry. O must have missed your comment when i was skimming over the articles before i posted

No problems ... compared to the mistakes I make .... i only really learn through mistakes ..... Also that post was quite busy .... and I only came over the 73961 at the end of preparing it.

I guess my understanding was class 73 was a generally highly successful design and I was tricking to explore any reasons for the 'terrible' comment. I has taken a couple of possible reasons off of wikipedia.

In terms of the cab design a photo of the (ergonomic) RVEL redesign is here:

http://paulbigland.zenfolio.com/p119809187/h390de3fe#h390de3fe

and for contrast this is the original ..http://www.davidheyscollection.com/userimages/0000-g-burch-class73-guide-1.jpg

I have no information on the what the inside cab of the Brush 7396x is like.

.....

But if Mr. ASLEF has seen the new RVEL 7395x cab and then perhaps seen the 7396x cab was unchanged then there would be more fireworks that a class 73 on 3rd rail on snow! (Please note I do not know what a 7396x cab layout is like!)

.....

One other point is if I recall the old class 73's were limited to 60mph on diesel .... I assume that has changed on 739[56]x

 

[cj_1985]

No problems ... compared to the mistakes I make .... i only really learn through mistakes ..... Also that post was quite busy .... and I only came over the 73961 at the end of preparing it.

I guess my understanding was class 73 was a generally highly successful design and I was tricking to explore any reasons for the 'terrible' comment. I has taken a couple of possible reasons off of wikipedia.

In terms of the cab design a photo of the (ergonomic) RVEL redesign is here:

http://paulbigland.zenfolio.com/p119809187/h390de3fe#h390de3fe

and for contrast this is the original ..http://www.davidheyscollection.com/userimages/0000-g-burch-class73-guide-1.jpg

I have no information on the what the inside cab of the Brush 7396x is like.

.....

But if Mr. ASLEF has seen the new RVEL 7395x cab and then perhaps seen the 7396x cab was unchanged then there would be more fireworks that a class 73 on 3rd rail on snow! (Please note I do not know what a 7396x cab layout is like!)

.....

One other point is if I recall the old class 73's were limited to 60mph on diesel .... I assume that has changed on 739[56]x

IIRC the 60mph limit was just the 73/0s ?...

 

[455driver]

Please do forgive if this sounds ignorant but wouldn't a HST be perfect for the Caledonian Sleeper?

Absolutely not, a HST has very tall gearing (so it can reach 125mph) and as a consequence has very little tractive effort (pulling power) which means it can pull a light train very fast.
To pull the Caledonian sleeper it needs to be able to pull a heavy train fairly slowly would mean it would need to be re-geared which wont be cheap, if it was geared for a top speed of 75mph it would probably be able to pull three times the weight.

Lets compare a HST with a class 26 (both Bo-Bo locos)-

HST-2250hp, 125mph, max TE 17980lbf, continuous TE 10340lbf
26--1250hp, 75mph, max TE 42000lbf, continuous TE 30000lbf

So you can see even though the 26 has a lot less power it can actually pull a much heavier train, just a lot slower.

 

[Rick1984]

pardon my ignorance but why are people mentioning class 33's as suitable. what do they have that other locos don't?

 

[bigdelboy]

pardon my ignorance but why are people mentioning class 33's as suitable. what do they have that other locos don't?

Compared to a class 7396x ....

Approx:
same power 1550hp.
Same weight
IMHO a 'bigger' mcRAT.
Already has ETH (was build with this) ... (index 48 which might just be too low for 8 car sleeper).
RA6
Compared to a '73 doesn't need a rebuild ... fit for purpose out of the box ( though old and reliability now suspect and fuel consumption and traction control probably not up to modern standards).
Relatively quite a few left around.
Effectively the stablemate of the 73 on the southern region ... and would be the item of choice if no third rail around.
Similar to class 26/7 that used to work up those parts ... but higher power.
RA6.

The alternatives of class 37/4 and 31/4 are heavier co-co's/A1A-A1A.

For the 8 coach sleeper on the highland main line in multiple there would be 8 power axles ... though as eth would only come from rear unit that
would be marginal.

....

 

[Jamesb1974]

Compared to a class 7396x ....

Approx:
same power 1550hp.
Same weight
IMHO a 'bigger' mcRAT.
Already has ETH (was build with this) ... (index 48 which might just be too low for 8 car sleeper).
RA6
Compared to a '73 doesn't need a rebuild ... fit for purpose out of the box ( though old and reliability now suspect and fuel consumption and traction control probably not up to modern standards).
Relatively quite a few left around.
Effectively the stablemate of the 73 on the southern region ... and would be the item of choice if no third rail around.
Similar to class 26/7 that used to work up those parts ... but higher power.
RA6.

The alternatives of class 37/4 and 31/4 are heavier co-co's/A1A-A1A.

For the 8 coach sleeper on the highland main line in multiple there would be 8 power axles ... though as eth would only come from rear unit that
would be marginal.

....

I can't see any operator in the right mind wanting to win a lucrative contract like the sleepers, then stick a knackered, non rebuilt, near 55 year old engine on it 'straight out of the box'. As much as we'd like to see heritage traction running every day on the mainline on premier passenger services, I just cant see it happening. Maybe if a handful of 33's were put through the same process as the 73's are, but then why not choose them in the first place?

And as for a 31. Ask a driver who worked them, back in the day. Universally accepted as unable to pull the skin off a rice pudding (from the old hands who have told me about them).

 

[bigdelboy]

I can't see any operator in the right mind wanting to win a lucrative contract like the sleepers, then stick a knackered, non rebuilt, near 55 year old engine on it 'straight out of the box'. As much as we'd like to see heritage traction running every day on the mainline on premier passenger services, I just cant see it happening. Maybe if a handful of 33's were put through the same process as the 73's are, but then why not choose them in the first place?

I just really offer these up as a tongue in cheek comparison. But if the 7396x prove unreliable ..... and the 67's have been reployed ... one wonders what the fallback situation is... And also one wonders if say a 33 rebuild would have been less complicated ... no DC bit to worry about ... though GBRF may have started this anyway and intend to use some down south and can apply encomonies of scale for that.

And as for a 31. Ask a driver who worked them, back in the day. Universally accepted as unable to pull the skin off a rice pudding (from the old hands who have told me about them).

.... Perhaps ASLEF should be more worried about the GCR testing on 73961+Class31 .... Perhaps for the highland main line which I understands needs a double head they'll multiple a 73 and 31/4 ... the 31/4 with the high ETH 66 heating the coaches and giving a little extra traction ... I am of course joking ... I hope.

 

[Bodiddly]

And as for a 31. Ask a driver who worked them, back in the day. Universally accepted as unable to pull the skin off a rice pudding (from the old hands who have told me about them).

They were called Ped's, short for Pedal Car or Pedestrian!

 

[bigdelboy]

They were called Ped's, short for Pedal Car or Pedestrian!

The startup of a GCR is shown at some point on this video ... more pertinently there is some video close up of a very inert and static "terrible" 73961 in about the last minute of this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anpt4tbMVeU

 

[455driver]

Compared to a class 7396x ....

Approx:
same power 1550hp.
Same weight
IMHO a 'bigger' mcRAT.
Already has ETH (was build with this) ... (index 48 which might just be too low for 8 car sleeper).

The ETH on a 33 is only 750V instead of the normal 1000V due to their Southern pedigree.

 

[Topgun333]

There's something about the RVEL 73 rebuilds that makes them look extremely continental.

 

[cj_1985]

There's something about the RVEL 73 rebuilds that makes them look extremely continental.

The lack of obvious MW sockets/cables...?

 

[bigdelboy]

It seems one has an opportunity to try out behind rebuilt "terrible" 73 tomorrow:

http://www.gcrailway.co.uk/news/#12589

( Don't blame me for misinformation or non-performance!)

.... I understand they are to be used on RHTT or something first ... and I think I also seen hearsay elsewhere the 67's will retain the sleepers .... ( perhaps the 73's were a big only carrot).

 

[scotraildriver]

There is a class 67 traction course for 4 drivers in a few weeks. Seems odd if they are being replaced by 73's.

 

[jopsuk]

Hardly. Serco are not due to take over the operation until April, and there's no word on when after that the contract for the 67s expires and the contract for the 73s starts. Presumably those four drivers are needed rather sooner!

 

[scotraildriver]

These drivers were told they were not getting 67 training, now they are. Bearing in mind it is a 2 week course at the end of November, then 5 weeks practical handling EACH, these drivers wont be passed out January/Feb. It doesn't make sense unless the 67 are staying on at least for a while.

 

[Sunbird24]

I didn’t think that the 73s would be used in pairs on the West Highland? Sounds like overkill for a 4 or 5 carriage train. Sounds like double-heading might only be under consideration for the Inverness sleeper portion.

Have you ever been to the West Highland Line? The gradients (1:60 to 1:70) and tight curves are no different to those on the other highland lines, as is the maximum altitude (100' less). The climb from Fort William (sea level) to Corrour (1350') is 28 miles averaging 1:100 with 10 miles at 1:67. In the other direction for 15½ miles at 1:60 to 1:70 from Ardlui with a short downhill stretch at Crianlarich.

 

[jopsuk]

perhaps the 73s aren't going to be used until the new stock arrives?

 

[The Citadel]

Or at all.

 

[bigdelboy]

These drivers were told they were not getting 67 training, now they are. Bearing in mind it is a 2 week course at the end of November, then 5 weeks practical handling EACH, these drivers wont be passed out January/Feb. It doesn't make sense unless the 67 are staying on at least for a while.

Slightly off topic but I am thinking possibly best practice when possilble to give the training in that time of year when i assume rail adhesion will likely be somewhat worse than say mid summer ...

 

[sprinterguy]

Have you ever been to the West Highland Line?

Yes, several times. Including using the sleeper.

The gradients (1:60 to 1:70) and tight curves are no different to those on the other highland lines, as is the maximum altitude (100' less). The climb from Fort William (sea level) to Corrour (1350') is 28 miles averaging 1:100 with 10 miles at 1:67. In the other direction for 15½ miles at 1:60 to 1:70 from Ardlui with a short downhill stretch at Crianlarich.

Which were all handled competently throughout the 1970s by class 27 locos of 1,250hp, with sometimes heavier loads than the current Caledonian sleeper, as I have mentioned previously in the thread. That is somewhat less than the 1,500hp than is being offered by the refurbished class 73s. The 4 or 5 coach Caledonian sleeper trains were a push-over for the 1,750hp class 37s.

You may not have considered that the maximum line speeds on the West Highland line are considerably lower than those on the Aberdeen or the Inverness routes, and the sleeper formation is certainly shorter.

 

[Sunbird24]

Yes, several times. Including using the sleeper.

Which were all handled competently throughout the 1970s by class 27 locos of 1,250hp, with sometimes heavier loads than the current Caledonian sleeper, as I have mentioned previously in the thread. That is somewhat less than the 1,500hp than is being offered by the refurbished class 73s. The 4 or 5 coach Caledonian sleeper trains were a push-over for the 1,750hp class 37s.

You may not have considered that the maximum line speeds on the West Highland line are considerably lower than those on the Aberdeen or the Inverness routes, and the sleeper formation is certainly shorter.

I think you are missing something here. Further up this thread it is suggested that the Inverness portion is only 4-5 sleepers - the rest are empty stock movements to a depot which is closing so they will no longer be in the consist? See post #44, 5 to Fort William, 5 to Inverness, 6 to Aberdeen, an easier route, hence the reason I see no real difference between the two Highland routes.
My experience on these routes was in 1960 when steam still ruled, trains were sometimes much longer and double-heading was frequent. The only diesels I recall were a few shunters and type 4s at Edinburgh. My pictures disappeared with Fotopic but I am slowly putting them back on Facebook. Only posted a few Great Eastern ones so far. https://www.facebook.com/media/set/...713.1073741848.1192973669&type=1&l=b6db78a4ad

 

[jopsuk]

just to correct- the current sleeper formations north of Edinburgh are:
8 to Inverness (a complete set of six sleepers, a lounge and a seated coach as the maintenance base is at Inverness, allows set swaps)
6 (sometimes five) to Aberdeen
4 (sometimes five) to Fort William

 

[matchmaker]

I think you are missing something here. Further up this thread it is suggested that the Inverness portion is only 4-5 sleepers - the rest are empty stock movements to a depot which is closing so they will no longer be in the consist? See post #44, 5 to Fort William, 5 to Inverness, 6 to Aberdeen, an easier route, hence the reason I see no real difference between the two Highland routes.
My experience on these routes was in 1960 when steam still ruled, trains were sometimes much longer and double-heading was frequent. The only diesels I recall were a few shunters and type 4s at Edinburgh. My pictures disappeared with Fotopic but I am slowly putting them back on Facebook. Only posted a few Great Eastern ones so far. https://www.facebook.com/media/set/...713.1073741848.1192973669&type=1&l=b6db78a4ad

I wasn't aware that the Inverness depot was closing?

 

[Sunbird24]

just to correct- the current sleeper formations north of Edinburgh are:
8 to Inverness (a complete set of six sleepers, a lounge and a seated coach as the maintenance base is at Inverness, allows set swaps)
6 (sometimes five) to Aberdeen
4 (sometimes five) to Fort William

I was quoting the earlier post #44 which is about the future plans with class 73, not the current formation with class 67. I have no idea whether that posters information on formations is based on knowledge or rumour but the bit about the depot is rumour.
Serco have announced that the new trains to be built by CAF will commence construction in April 2015 and will enter service in April 2018 and the formation will include a club coach.
The changes they have announced for April 2015 make no mention of train formations or locomotives except that GBRF will provide the locomotives, drivers and guards.

 

[scotraildriver]

I wasn't aware that the Inverness depot was closing?

It isn't. Complete drivel.And no decisions have yet been made on crewing arrangements from next May. The unions have several meetings planned with Serco/Abelio and others in the coming weeks. There are also a good number of jobs being advertised within our depots currently for work/transfer to the sleeper(Obviously with First/Scotrail/Union permission) so everything written here is pure speculation. There are not yet ANY firm plans in place.

 

[bigdelboy]

73961 on passenger service:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/21095258@N03/14943771004/in/photostream/

Having seen a few posts recently the RTH/ETS situation of this rebuild intrigues me. I know understand the class 33 eth supply would have been at 750v ... and southern coaches were optimized for this; whereas most builds/conversion would have been at 1000v. Most coaches like 1000v; and some do badly if the supply goes under 800v. I assume original class 73 were set to supply eth at 750v in line with southern standards; and I assume the 73/9 re-builds now would be set to supply at 1000v. I wonder if the higher eth setting would be an issue if multitpled with only southern stock .... or perhaps even the 5-bel under restoration .... hmmmm ....

 

[Altnabreac]

As the author of aforementioned post #44 I'll agree there are no confirmed plans and the depot plans are speculation. One thing we do know is that the seated service to Fort William and the baggage/cycle portion have to be run through from London as it is a Franchise requirement to remove the change at Edinburgh for at least the "Couchette/Pod" type service and preferably for the seats too.

This may not need to be implemented until the new stock arrives in 2018 however.

We also know that the maximum train length will remain at 16 coaches so running more coaches through to FW has to lead to less for Inverness / Aberdeen.

The new franchise could still add/remove the Fort William club car giving 17 coaches north of Edinburgh rather than the current 18 but you suspect for ease of operation it will fall to 16 North of Edinburgh.

Whether these are split 8/4/4 or 5/5/6 or some other combination is also speculation but a Central Scotland maintenance base would make formations more flexible.