Could Class class 88 or 93s replace Class 57s on GWR's Night Riviera?

[43 302]

Would they not keep the current setup of 57s and Mk3s for maybe 5 years and then replace the locomotives when they presumably upgrade to Mk5s? Is there a reason why the 57s need replacing sooner than the Mk3s?

 

[Energy]

Would they not keep the current setup of 57s and Mk3s for maybe 5 years and then replace the locomotives when they presumably upgrade to Mk5s? Is there a reason why the 57s need replacing sooner than the Mk3s?

I doubt they will upgrade the mk5s, the fleet is only 18 carriages making the cost high as I doubt CAF will still be able to easily make them in 5 years. I would expect them to convert mk4s into sleepers and to work with 67s. Or to order customised 9 car 802s which some carriages have sleeping berths instead of seats.

 

[43 302]

I doubt they will upgrade the mk5s, the fleet is only 18 carriages making the cost high as I doubt CAF will still be able to easily make them in 5 years. I would expect them to convert mk4s into sleepers and to work with 67s. Or to order customised 9 car 802s which some carriages have sleeping berths instead of seats.

Yeah I could see the 802s, either way, I'm not sure why the 57s would need replacing before the Mk3s.

 

[Energy]

Yeah I could see the 802s, either way, I'm not sure why the 57s would need replacing before the Mk3s.

The mk 3s had a refurb, they will need replacing but I don't think mk5s are the answer due to the high cost.

 

[Domh245]

It definitely won't be brand new specially converted 802s. Sleeper services aren't exactly profitable and there won't be much appetite for supporting a service that's just spent quite a lot on it's stock. The only reason Caledonian Sleeper got the Mk5s is because ScotGov are willing to pay, and well, let's say they're getting what they paid for!

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

As part of the GWR extension replacement of the Class 57s is expected. I wonder whether class 88 or 89 locos would work?

Sorry to ask but where does it say about the 57's being replaced? I will say though, what about Class 68's? 3,800hp vs like 2,500 (I watched a Paddington 24/7 programme and the narrator said it had a 2500hp engine and is a thirsty beast).

How come the 57's are being replaced all of a sudden? Surely they're more reliable than when they were Class 47's at 30 years old?

 

[StewLane]

Sorry to ask but where does it say about the 57's being replaced? I will say though, what about Class 68's? 3,800hp vs like 2,500 (I watched a Paddington 24/7 programme and the narrator said it had a 2500hp engine and is a thirsty beast).

How come the 57's are being replaced all of a sudden? Surely they're more reliable than when they were Class 47's at 30 years old?

Modern Railways May edition page 9 in the section on Sleeper planning

 

[Whistler40145]

As a matter of interest, what’s the distance a Class 88 can cover when working on Diesel Power?

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

Modern Railways May edition page 9 in the section on Sleeper planning

Yes. That's not the only thing it lists - for another thread though for me to say what.

 

[Meerkat]

I doubt they will upgrade the mk5s, the fleet is only 18 carriages making the cost high as I doubt CAF will still be able to easily make them in 5 years. I would expect them to convert mk4s into sleepers and to work with 67s. Or to order customised 9 car 802s which some carriages have sleeping berths instead of seats.

Underfloor engines for a sleeper train!!

 

[Nippy]

Not that I use the sleepers often, but I wouldn't want to see them push-pull with a DVT. I find the Chiltern sets very jerky when heading into London with the DVT leading.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

Underfloor engines for a sleeper train!!

Not if the seated accommodation had the engines - mind you, they'd have to have 940hp to get some power. Or alternatively, couldn't there be a 100mph version of the IET? The Class 175 is basically a 100mph Adelante as the 175 and 180's look almost identical.

I'll be very honest, I can see problems emerging if Mark 5 Sleepers were the replacement stock - I've more faith in a Mark 3-hauled 57 than a Mark 5 sleeper at the moment, should I travel in a sleeper. Yes there's teething issues with anything new at first but the teething issues were pretty major I believe.

 

[43096]

As a matter of interest, what’s the distance a Class 88 can cover when working on Diesel Power?

It’s irrelevant for this topic though. You aren’t going to run the sleeper with one.

 

[Energy]

I'll be very honest, I can see problems emerging if Mark 5 Sleepers were the replacement stock - I've more faith in a Mark 3-hauled 57 than a Mark 5 sleeper at the moment, should I travel in a sleeper. Yes there's teething issues with anything new at first but the teething issues were pretty major I believe.

Teething problems and brake problems I would classify as different

 

[Whistler40145]

It’s irrelevant for this topic though. You aren’t going to run the sleeper with one.

That was a rather terse reply

 

[HSTEd]

THe real question is what ETS index the Class 93s will be able to manage on diesel power.
If they can make the ETS index it doesn't matter if they are left with slow freight train levels of performance after that, the Sleepers have a ridiculously slack schedule as it is.

And not burning any diesel east of Newbury/Bristol depending on which route they take is a definite plus operationally.

 

[Peter Kelford]

Therefore unless you propose converting HSTs to be sleepers, your idea is not viable.

Could the sleepers not be converted to HST-style carriages?

Class 67s are available as quite a few are in storage, the mk3s got refurbished quite recently so I can't see them going for a while. This is a long term plan, we could see something short term but the most I would expect is 67s swapped in for 57s. DB Cargo also have quite a few 90s stored a crewe, maybe we could see them just swap locos at a station, both 67s and 90s can work with a mk3 DVT, lots of which are in storage.

90s would be useless over the Devon Banks...

My understanding is that the 67s cannot be easily used with the sleeper stock, as they are only fitted with AAR multiple working equippment that requires a large jumper cable running the length of the train, for which the DVTs have been specially fitted.
The traditional DVT control mechanism is via TDM on the RCH lighting control jumpers that are provided on all BR era hauled stock as a matter of course.
So work would be necessary on the 67s regardless, unless a far more extensive refurbishment of the hauled stock is undertaken at the same time.

If refurbishing why not convert loco hauled Mk3s into HST-style power or vice-versa?

 

[Aictos]

Could the sleepers not be converted to HST-style carriages?

That would be a utter waste of time, resources and money as you would have to convert the power supply from standard 1000 V DC or single-phase AC train heat supply from the locomotive and convert it through motor generator units under the floor to industrial voltage/frequency 3-phase supply directly from an auxiliary alternator in the power car.

You might as well try to convert existing HST carriages to sleepers but seeing as there is no need for them to run at high speed, it's far more economical and realistic to just keep the existing Mk3s until such a time that CAF for example is given a order for Mk5s sleepers like the Anglo-Scottish sleepers use.

That would be a far more better use of funding, would be more easier to do and would deliver a easily recognised upgrade to passengers.

 

[Energy]

90s would be useless over the Devon Banks...

That's why I suggested the a 90 and DVT till the station in which the electrification stops, then the 90 gets swapped out for a 67 the rest of the way.

 

[Whistler40145]

That's why I suggested the a 90 and DVT till the station in which the electrification stops, then the 90 gets swapped out for a 67 the rest of the way.

Will the line ever get wired into Devon and Cornwall?

 

[Clansman]

I doubt they will upgrade the mk5s, the fleet is only 18 carriages making the cost high as I doubt CAF will still be able to easily make them in 5 years. I would expect them to convert mk4s into sleepers and to work with 67s. Or to order customised 9 car 802s which some carriages have sleeping berths instead of seats.

Why on earth would anybody want to touch the Mk4s for sleeper duty? There is absolutely no need and no benefit what so ever - not to mention it'd be more expensive long term than Mk5s!

As for the 802s; underfloor engines with higher floors, and MUs in general, don't make good sleeper trains.

The only reason Caledonian Sleeper got the Mk5s is because ScotGov are willing to pay, and well, let's say they're getting what they paid for!

Depends what you're basing value for money on. For one, the ride quality and ambience is absolutely attrocious. That, plus storage space, is where Mk3 sleepers excel at. Though to be fair if that was ever done properly then you'd have a point as the design itself bar the mechanics really is remarkable.

 

[Energy]

Depends what you're basing value for money on. For one, the ride quality and ambience is absolutely attrocious. Though to be fair if that was ever done properly then you'd have a point.

CAFs are known to be cheap for a reason!

 

[Clansman]

CAFs are known to be cheap for a reason!

The well known abbreviation that many on the forum use, comes to mind. It's a great shame, as the design merrits a batter standard of rolling stock than what CAF have offered with their recent deliveries. No chance anybody envisaged how poor the quality would be. Would be very costly to rectify, and I highly doubt that'll ever happen.

 

[Meerkat]

The well known abbreviation that many on the forum use, comes to mind. It's a great shame, as the design merrits a batter standard of rolling stock than what CAF have offered with their recent deliveries. No chance anybody envisaged how poor the quality would be. Would be very costly to rectify, and I highly doubt that'll ever happen.

Would it be possible for a GWR new build version to get rid of the defects without too much cost (either design or build cost)?
And using the price of the Scottish sleepers how much would a GWR fleet replacement cost - ’little’ enough for a political bone throwing to the far west?

 

[Energy]

Would it be possible for a GWR new build version to get rid of the defects without too much cost (either design or build cost)?
And using the price of the Scottish sleepers how much would a GWR fleet replacement cost - ’little’ enough for a political bone throwing to the far west?

It depends when they order them, if they order them now then they might be able to get a tag on order for mk5s, similar to TPEs order. These would be rather cheap as lots of the costs for design and tooling have been taken care of by Caledonian Sleeper, if they order them in a couple years then they will be expensive as lots of the tooling for mk5s would likely be gone.

That is if anyone would be willing to build them in a couple years, CAF were the only bidder for mk5s as the order is small and they aren't likely to be ordered by anyone else. New loco hauled trains are rare in the UK and elsewhere, this means that the development cost has to be recouped in a smaller amount of carriages, increasing the price and making them a less compelling option. The 18 carriages the Night Riviera has is not a lot, the order for mk5s was 75 carriages which is just over 4x the amount of carriages Night Riviera has and only 1 company was willing to build them. If the mk5 tooling gets scrapped I doubt anyone will be willing to build new carriages for the Night Riviera, it just wouldn't be profitable for them unless whoever pays for the carriages is willing to spend a ridiculously high amount.

 

[Meerkat]

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...te-on-new-coaches-and-their-viability.203772/

I have started a new thread as this one is supposed to be for the haulage, not the stock.....

 

[43096]

That's why I suggested the a 90 and DVT till the station in which the electrification stops, then the 90 gets swapped out for a 67 the rest of the way.

Not really worth it if it goes via Newbury, as it often does. The train can go any one of four ways between Reading and Taunton: via Newbury (wires end at Newbury), via Box and Bristol (wires end somewhere around Chippenham), via Melksham (ditto on wires) and via Hullavington (wires end at Bristol Parkway). It's not ideal for doing loco changes at all given the variety of routes.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Well if ScotRail can make Inter7Citys work with refurb HSTs, I don't see why not in the short term Class 43s/HST converted PRM-TSI compliant, sleepers etc can not be used. 2030 will be something different.

 

[Clansman]

Well if ScotRail can make Inter7Citys work with refurb HSTs, I don't see why not in the short term Class 43s/HST converted PRM-TSI complaint, sleepers etc can not be used. 2030 will be something different.

Remember that it has taken 2-3 years for Wabtec to cough up half of the ScotRail HST sets, so that aspect puts off any sort of effort for TOCs where they're going off-lease by December, to PRM modify them. Hence why EMR are going half backsided by taking LNER HSTs rather than going for Wabtec on steroids. A wise move when they're binning them in under a year anyway!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Remember that it has taken 2-3 years for Wabtec to cough up half of the ScotRail HST sets, so that aspect puts off any sort of effort for TOCs where they're going off-lease by December, to PRM modify them. Hence why EMR are going half backsided by taking LNER HSTs rather than going for Wabtec on steroids. A wise move when they're binning them in under a year anyway!

I despair. You would think they would be hungry for business