Caledonian Sleeper Class 92's

[TimboM]

This thread seems to be long on rumour and supposition and short of hard facts about 92s on 3rd rail, both of GBRf and DB Cargo varieties.

Anyone got any facts, or are we sticking with the "post-truth"?

I think you could say the same for most threads on this forum! But isn't that part of the fun/interest - that people post what they've seen/heard and others can either corroborate or counter with better 'evidence' should they have it.

Short of someone in GBRf and DB who is responsible for their 92 fleets coming on here and giving the full run-down (plus evidence they're legit) - which I expect is very unlikely - it's always going to be a piecing together of info people have obtained.

All that said, without going OTT, I and others have referenced where they've got the info from pretty well, so readers can make their own mind up what is hard fact and what is hearsay. It's all in the above somewhere, but I'll try and summarise:

- The info I posted above re. the status of the remaining 6x DB 92s in use in the UK was from recent first-hand accounts from DB 92 drivers elsewhere on the interweb; backed up in some cases by recent photos (e.g. one of 92036 with its shoe gear clearly absent). Others posting have corroborated the info about their status and restriction to HS1/Tunnel only. In short they are all unable/not permitted to run on the 3rd rail, with some having the actual gear removed.
- Leo Martin's info was (I'm pretty confident) a genuine recollection of what he was told by the GBRf driver (whether that driver had the whole facts correct or not) when he cabbed 92014 last summer (he's posted a YouTube video including stills of the cab, so there's evidence this wasn't all a dream ).
- Regarding the GBRf 92s, there is a YouTube video from last weekend of 92044 dragging 92032 on the third rail, then returning light engine (linked in fgwrich's post above); pretty solid "evidence" that 92044 at least can run on 3rd rail.
- In addition, 92032 and 92044 have both been hauling the Dollands Moor-Irvine china clay trains over the past couple of months over the third rail (data available freely on interweb of locos assigned, routes taken etc.) - further 'evidence' these locos at least have 3rd rail capacity.
- There's a YouTube video of 92038 running light engine on 3rd rail in Sept last year - again, reasonable evidence that this loco 3rd rail active (or had 6 months ago). [Search "92038 Denmark Hill" on YouTube if you want to see it.]
- 92023 ran light-engine to Tonbridge last week - again verified by more than one source of reliable data available on the interweb - evidence that its 3rd rail is working.
- There is no decent/conclusive evidence I've seen yet (although that's not to say there isn't any) regarding the 3rd rail status of the other 5/6 operational GBRf 92s.

I trust that provides a summary of what I at least think the 'hard facts' we have on this particular strand of this thread are, and the evidence backing them up, in so far as we can ever have cast iron facts on a forum like this.

 

[TimboM]

I'm fairly sure the DB HS1 ones have some mod/isolation which means they cannot work north of Dollands Moor off HS1.
GB ones "work" except their weekly freight train with one is such a shambles it is supposed to be being mandated to not be a 92 by NR after three or four consecutive failures and resultant chaos of morning peaks. Fairly sure a CS liveried one was involved at least once.

I'm assuming the weekly freight in question is the Dollands Moor-Irvine Caledonian Paper china clay one (6S94). The only other GBRf freight working that fairly regularly uses a 92 is the Dagenham-Garston Ford car train - which I don't believe has had any major issues recently (nor runs on 3rd rail at any point AFAIK).

The china clay train had fairly regular failures on the 3rd rail back in the days of DB 92 haulage - due to the weight of the tanks and the gaps in the 3rd rail meaning the momentary drops in power could cause problems with the 92s over-sensitive systems.

Not sure how legit the info of the blanket 92 NR 'mandate' is as 92044 worked this last week (8 March) without too many apparent issues - was running about an hour late at one point across London, but that was at 5am so cannot see it impacting rush hour too much - and then ran to time up the WCML. Working didn't run this week as far as I can see. However, 92032 was on it the week before (1 March) and ended up being almost 6 hours late. 032 hasn't been allocated to it since, or doing much else it would seem until it appeared on the Sleeper (last night and tonight), so perhaps it's the one that's misbehaving and got the NR "ban", if indeed there is one.

I keep a close eye on the CS-liveried 92s and I'm pretty certain none of them have been on the China Clay working since GBRf took it over in early January. They've all done turns on the car train, including as part of post-Loughborough mods "testing" - but as above, don't think these have had any major issues/delays.

 

[43096]

I keep a close eye on the CS-liveried 92s and I'm pretty certain none of them have been on the China Clay working since GBRf took it over in early January. They've all done turns on the car train, including as part of post-Loughborough mods "testing" - but as above, don't think these have had any major issues/delays.

I don't think you can read anything into that. The CS liveried locos - with the exception of 038 - have been the first to get the reliability mods. Unsurprisingly these are being used on the sleepers as a priority as it reduces the need for the expensive hire in of Freightliner 90s.

 

[TimboM]

Agreed re the (modified) C/S liveried ones being prioritised on the Sleeper.

My comment was relating to what 87015 had heard regarding the possibility of one of the C/S ones being involved in issues on the China Clay weekly working, which I don't think is possible as they've not worked it - just 92032/92044 AFAIK.

I see 92038 is now at Crewe Holding Sidings - wonder if it's next up for Loughborough...?

 

[Roast Veg]

Saw 92038 with my own eyes yesterday at Crewe, next to all those Mk1/2s. I'm not sure what state it would have been left in for thunderbird work, but the pan appeared to be down.

 

[TimboM]

Saw 92038 with my own eyes yesterday at Crewe, next to all those Mk1/2s. I'm not sure what state it would have been left in for thunderbird work, but the pan appeared to be down.

Ah - the favourite 'parking spot' for GBRf locos at Crewe. Once saw three of the C/S 92s (including 038 as it happens) parked up there in the darker days of Nov 2015 when they'd all been taken off the sleepers.

Indications are 92038 headed back down to Dagenham with the empty car train this afternoon (6L48), so looks like it will be back working that. It did 3 runs on it last week before having a few days parked up in Crewe.

 

[leomartin125]

Ah - the favourite 'parking spot' for GBRf locos at Crewe. Once saw three of the C/S 92s (including 038 as it happens) parked up there in the darker days of Nov 2015 when they'd all been taken off the sleepers.

Indications are 92038 headed back down to Dagenham with the empty car train this afternoon (6L48), so looks like it will be back working that. It did 3 runs on it last week before having a few days parked up in Crewe.

You mentioned earlier about maybe it heading to Brush, however I thought 92038 had already had it's modifications done? It stated that it had in RAIL magazine.

 

[TimboM]

You mentioned earlier about maybe it heading to Brush, however I thought 92038 had already had it's modifications done? It stated that it had in RAIL magazine.

Quite a few users on here have stated 92038 hasn't had its mods done. I don't recall it going in to Brush for any extended period either (since 92014 had the big visit last summer when they worked through the mods needed). Not sure RAIL's info is correct...?

It also is the only C/S liveried one still with tunnel rings and the Crewe IEMD shield on, and as per posts above apparently it just received a paint job and not a full overhaul when the Sleeper contract started. All that aside, it seems to have been pretty reliable and has been used a fair bit on the sleepers since the new year. Maybe it's set up differently in some way and less susceptible to the issues the others face...?

92023, which has been modified and was back on the Sleepers, went back into Brush last week. Not sure if it still needs some tweaks, or it's the first one to be kitted out with the new Mk5 dellner couplings.

92043 is currently in for an overhaul/mods too (maybe a new paint job whilst they're at it) and 92028 is believed to be making a long-awaited return to the rails very soon.

 

[43096]

You mentioned earlier about maybe it heading to Brush, however I thought 92038 had already had it's modifications done? It stated that it had in RAIL magazine.

You don't want to believe what's written in Rail. Not known as Liar for nothing....

 

[cl19]

Looks like a 92 has travelled from Brush to Tonbridge via Crewe today - 92023 returning perhaps??

 

[TimboM]

Looks like a 92 has travelled from Brush to Tunbridge via Crewe today - 92023 returning perhaps??

Sort of... it was 92023 leaving Loughborough after a shortish visit. 73961 hauled it from Loughborough to Crewe [0Z51], then dropped it off (023 currently parked in the Holding Sidings by the old Mk1/2 coaches I believe). The 73 then headed back to Tonbridge Yard [0Z52].

 

[TimboM]

In other news GBRf 92 news, 92032 hauled this week's "Silver Bullet" (or "Rusty Brown Bullet") china clay working, so doesn't seem like it has a NR ban over the third rail.

66728 was tucked in DIT behind it - I'm assuming primarily to take the train forward from Carlisle when the wires run out, rather than being a 'safety blanket'.

 

[cl19]

Thanks for the clarification. Hopefully we should see 92028 and 92043 returning soon

 

[87015]

In other news GBRf 92 news, 92032 hauled this week's "Silver Bullet" (or "Rusty Brown Bullet") china clay working, so doesn't seem like it has a NR ban over the third rail.

66728 was tucked in DIT behind it - I'm assuming primarily to take the train forward from Carlisle when the wires run out, rather than being a 'safety blanket'.

The 66 worked it Dollands Moor to Wembley, didn't it? Minutes lost due to diesel traction in 3rd rail land

 

[TimboM]

Thanks for the clarification. Hopefully we should see 92028 and 92043 returning soon

Hopefully yes - should be in the next couple of weeks or so. Also hoping they might give 043 a more inspiring paint job than the old "drab grey", and that doesn't mean putting it in parent company Hector Rail's livery which is, erm, drab grey.

 

[TimboM]

The 66 worked it Dollands Moor to Wembley, didn't it? Minutes lost due to diesel traction in 3rd rail land

Not sure, might well have done. It set off 12L and lost about another 20-25 mins in 3rd rail land.

92032 went down light engine from Willesden yesterday afternoon to Dollands Moor. Does the 92 go through the tunnel to collect the train from the 'other side'? Otherwise, seems a bit odd to send the 92 to Dollands Moor only to be hauled back to Wembley/Willesden by the 66? You'd think they'd just get the 66 to bring it up to Wembley and put the 92 on there wouldn't you?

 

[CosherB]

Hopefully yes - should be in the next couple of weeks or so. Also hoping they might give 043 a more inspiring paint job than the old "drab grey", and that doesn't mean putting it in parent company Hector Rail's livery which is, erm, drab grey.

I'm not sure I'd call it drab!

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/traction-rolling-stock/single-view/view/hector-rail-orders-15-locomotives-for-timber-traffic.html

In any case, I doubt that the GBRf brand will disappear. I'm sure the non-CS 92s will get a new variation of the standard blue/orange livery, minus the Europorte elements.

 

[TimboM]

I'm not sure I'd call it drab!

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/traction-rolling-stock/single-view/view/hector-rail-orders-15-locomotives-for-timber-traffic.html

In any case, I doubt that the GBRf brand will disappear. I'm sure the non-CS 92s will get a new variation of the standard blue/orange livery, minus the Europorte elements.

Maybe not. Definitely grey though! A UK version would no doubt have bright yellow ends
I agree - if they do repaint it, I would have thought it'd be in the GBRf blue/orange similar to 032 and 028.

 

[leomartin125]

Hopefully yes - should be in the next couple of weeks or so. Also hoping they might give 043 a more inspiring paint job than the old "drab grey", and that doesn't mean putting it in parent company Hector Rail's livery which is, erm, drab grey.

I would disagree. I do like the retro feel to 92043's livery, and although the GBRf livery definitely is great, I would like at least one to maintain a bit of the BR heritage.

In the sun it looks even better:
https://flic.kr/p/LcDvcZ

 

[TimboM]

I would disagree. I do like the retro feel to 92043's livery, and although the GBRf livery definitely is great, I would like at least one to maintain a bit of the BR heritage.

In the sun it looks even better:
https://flic.kr/p/LcDvcZ

I do secretly quite like the "drab grey" really - after all it's what all 92s (and 60s) should look like and how I remember them when they were shiny and new.

I reckon 92044 would be the best candidate for this, though, as it's "clean" and doesn't have a big Europorte 2 logo on the side like 043 (or SNCF logos like 006/020 and some of their other stored ones).

 

[TimboM]

The 66 worked it Dollands Moor to Wembley, didn't it? Minutes lost due to diesel traction in 3rd rail land

It did - found these on Flickr (Credit: "Nightshiftworker"). 92032 and 92044 brought the train through the Tunnel (which explains why 92032 made the trip down from Willesden on Tuesday afternoon)...

https://flic.kr/p/RVuMLr

92044 is then taken off at Dollands Moor...

https://flic.kr/p/SY441t

And 66728 put on the front to haul it to Wembley...

https://flic.kr/p/TatjU2

...where they then swap the 92 and 66 around for the WCML run to Carlisle Yard where the 92 comes off and the 66 completes the journey to Irvine.

Quite a kerfuffle!

I wonder in due course when current overhauls/modifications are done and GBRf have more 92s available they'll keep 2 at Dollands Moor to do the Tunnel working, then use a different from Wembley to save the loco swap, which must take a bit of time/logistics to sort.

 

[leomartin125]

It did - found these on Flickr (Credit: "Nightshiftworker"). 92032 and 92044 brought the train through the Tunnel (which explains why 92032 made the trip down from Willesden on Tuesday afternoon)...

https://flic.kr/p/RVuMLr

92044 is then taken off at Dollands Moor...

https://flic.kr/p/SY441t

And 66728 put on the front to haul it to Wembley...

https://flic.kr/p/TatjU2

...where they then swap the 92 and 66 around for the WCML run to Carlisle Yard where the 92 comes off and the 66 completes the journey to Irvine.

Quite a kerfuffle!

I wonder in due course when current overhauls/modifications are done and GBRf have more 92s available they'll keep 2 at Dollands Moor to do the Tunnel working, then use a different from Wembley to save the loco swap, which must take a bit of time/logistics to sort.

So a 92 struggles to get it up the bank at North Pole, despite being the most powerful electric locomotive in the UK, and also the only electric locomotive that is allowed to operate single handidly over Shap Summit, which is a hell of a lot steeper than the bank at North Pole.... I don't see the logic here.

What I don't understand is, how this train struggles with a single 92 up North Pole Bank, but performs perfectly fine over shap summit. Is it because the 92 can't haul that much weight over that gradient in DC mode?

 

[59CosG95]

So a 92 struggles to get it up the bank at North Pole, despite being the most powerful electric locomotive in the UK, and also the only electric locomotive that is allowed to operate single handidly over Shap Summit, which is a hell of a lot steeper than the bank at North Pole.... I don't see the logic here.

What I don't understand is, how this train struggles with a single 92 up North Pole Bank, but performs perfectly fine over shap summit. Is it because the 92 can't haul that much weight over that gradient in DC mode?

I'd hazard a guess that that's exactly the reason. It's a lot harder to maintain constant tractive effort on 3rd rail due to its position switching multiple times, and, given its complex 90's circuitry, it really doesn't like unexpected drops in power!

 

[TimboM]

I'd hazard a guess that that's exactly the reason. It's a lot harder to maintain constant tractive effort on 3rd rail due to its position switching multiple times, and, given its complex 90's circuitry, it really doesn't like unexpected drops in power!

Yes, this is pretty much it... as you say with the 3rd (powered) rail frequently changing sides, plus other small gaps (e.g. junctions/crossings) there are places where the power momentarily drops. This doesn't help when trying to haul c.1,800 tonnes up a hill - bearing in mind the locos already have less power running on the 3rd rail vs 25kv) but also one of the things 92s really don't like is fluctuations in currents and their computers detect this as an issue and shut things down to protect the loco. The loco grinds to a halt and a reboot is then needed, before trying to start it up a gradient - again with all the same power problems caused by the 3rd rail/sensitive electronics.

Over Shap (and also Beattock, which I believe is even more of a challenge being a 10 mile climb mostly at 1 in 80) the 92s are on 25kv with no interruptions (usually!) to the power. Not sure if they still are, but the 92s were authorised to haul 2,000 tonnes on this route solo - I very much doubt any other locos are.

They've still had some issues in challenging weather conditions on those climbs back in the DB days - usually due to the traction motors, and more critically the traction convertor, working so hard they overheat and the 92's computer shuts them down to prevent damage - just at the critical part of the climb... and everything grinds to a halt blocking the mainline.

In one such incident on a baking hot day, though, the 92 cooled down for 20 mins and then managed a standing start on a 1 in 75 gradient up Beattock with just shy of 1,900 tonnes in tow and made it the remaining mile to the summit.

But as Leo says, they struggle with North Pole bank when on the 3rd rail...!

 

[captainbigun]

Max trailing load is officially 1600t, though DB have run some heavier trains.

 

[59CosG95]

Yes, this is pretty much it... as you say with the 3rd (powered) rail frequently changing sides, plus other small gaps (e.g. junctions/crossings) there are places where the power momentarily drops. This doesn't help when trying to haul c.1,800 tonnes up a hill - bearing in mind the locos already have less power running on the 3rd rail vs 25kv) but also one of the things 92s really don't like is fluctuations in currents and their computers detect this as an issue and shut things down to protect the loco. The loco grinds to a halt and a reboot is then needed, before trying to start it up a gradient - again with all the same power problems caused by the 3rd rail/sensitive electronics.

Over Shap (and also Beattock, which I believe is even more of a challenge being a 10 mile climb mostly at 1 in 80) the 92s are on 25kv with no interruptions (usually!) to the power. Not sure if they still are, but the 92s were authorised to haul 2,000 tonnes on this route solo - I very much doubt any other locos are.

They've still had some issues in challenging weather conditions on those climbs back in the DB days - usually due to the traction motors, and more critically the traction convertor, working so hard they overheat and the 92's computer shuts them down to prevent damage - just at the critical part of the climb... and everything grinds to a halt blocking the mainline.

In one such incident on a baking hot day, though, the 92 cooled down for 20 mins and then managed a standing start on a 1 in 75 gradient up Beattock with just shy of 1,900 tonnes in tow and made it the remaining mile to the summit.

But as Leo says, they struggle with North Pole bank when on the 3rd rail...!

Still beats me why they didn't electrify with OLE as far as Kenny O back in the 1990s, but then again, hindsight is a wonderful thing!

 

[TimboM]

Max trailing load is officially 1600t, though DB have run some heavier trains.

Aye, 1600 tonnes was the official designed maximum up Beattock from the BR days. Post-privatisation the likes of DB would have them quite regularly hauling c1800-1900t especially on this working. Then wonder no doubt why they kept failing and having fried traction motors :roll:

 

[TimboM]

Still beats me why they didn't electrify with OLE as far as Kenny O back in the 1990s, but then again, hindsight is a wonderful thing!

To save money (in the short term) no doubt.

 

[59CosG95]

To save money (in the short term) no doubt.

Aye, that seems likely, given the gov't of the time as well!

 

[TimboM]

Aye, that seems likely, given the gov't of the time as well!

Let's face it, if they had put any up, they'd probably be of the same ilk as the cheap and poor-quality ones on the ECML which keep failing.

Anyhow, we digress...!