Caledonian Sleeper

[norbitonflyer]

The OP was saying he had to get a taxi from home at 5am to stay in a hotel overnight in FW thats nonsense.

There is an evening service from Glasgow to FW, but it doesn't get in until after 10pm, which would make checking in to the hotel difficult. The previous train leaves Queen Street at 1223. Allowing time for the bus transfer from the airport, check in at Heathrow, getting to Heathrow in the first place, etc you need quite an early start, and at the relatively short notice the best we could find was an 0820 flight. (Although we got to Queen Street with two hours to spare)

 

[paul1609]

There is an evening service from Glasgow to FW, but it doesn't get in until after 10pm, which would make checking in to the hotel difficult. The previous train leaves Queen Street at 1223. Allowing time for the bus transfer from the airport, check in at Heathrow, getting to Heathrow in the first place, etc you need quite an early start, and at the relatively short notice the best we could find was an 0820 flight. (Although we got to Queen Street with two hours to spare)

Thats your choice really though to get a bus from Glasgow Airport 10 miles in the wrong direction to wait 2 hours for a train that only runs 3 times a day and takes over an hour longer than the direct bus from the airport. Its not the only alternative. You could have easily left home 5 hours later and been in Fort William for 6.15 pm

 

[BRX]

If any mods are looking at this what are the chances of possibly splitting sleeper discussion into two separate threads? One of them discussing day-to-day operations and things like that which is where people more interested in broken locomotives, unusual allocations or or horrendous or not customer experiences might go and another for discussing the viability or otherwise of the service, whether we should still be sharing cabins in 2021 and things relating to trip ideas and car hire etc. For my personal liking there's just too many topics on one page

What I find most frustrating about this thread is that we have the same arguments/discussions over and over again, groundhog day style, with no new points added each time. The sleeper vs car/plane one is the most tedious.

I'd also appreciate the thread trying to stick to discussion of the day to day working of the actual service, but it may be impossible to police.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is an evening service from Glasgow to FW, but it doesn't get in until after 10pm, which would make checking in to the hotel difficult.

Eh? What hotels in 2021 don't have 24 hour check in, at least by arrangement?

In a tourist location where the last of an infrequent train service arrives at 10pm, they will absolutely be geared up to have people coming off that train check in. If any aren't, they deserve to go out of business, so don't use them.

 

[najaB]

Eh? What hotels in 2021 don't have 24 hour check in, at least by arrangement?

In a normal 2021 they probably would. With reduced staffing due to low visitor numbers just now, a lot have reduced their reception hours.

One that I know of doesn't have anyone on reception at all after about 5pm, the keys are left in coded lock boxes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In a normal 2021 they probably would. With reduced staffing due to low visitor numbers just now, a lot have reduced their reception hours.

One that I know of doesn't have anyone on reception at all after about 5pm, the keys are left in coded lock boxes.

Yes I've come across that (and am totally fine with it - when I arrive late I want to access my room with the minimum of friction and interaction with others). But my point was that no hotel in Fort William that wants or deserves business is going to have a check-in arrangement that completely excludes people arriving on the last train when the service is that infrequent. Even if you have to ask them to do something for you specifically, e.g. leave the key under a plant pot or something.

If you're that worried, there is the Travelodge. I'm no fan of theirs (though that specific one isn't too bad), but all of them have a 24 hour reception.

This is therefore a non-issue.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Eh? What hotels in 2021 don't have 24 hour check in, at least by arrangement?

In a tourist location where the last of an infrequent train service arrives at 10pm, they will absolutely be geared up to have people coming off that train check in. If any aren't, they deserve to go out of business, so don't use them.

All points noted. Blame poor/limited choice in the short notice to re-arrange plans after the strike was confirmed.

Back to operational matters - in the early SERCO days we saw all sorts of odd motive power on the trains, a class 47 on the Carstairs-Edinburgh portion for example, and an 86 and 87 on the ECS at Euston. Apart from 66, 73 and 92, does/can any other motive power operate with the Mark 5s?

Could a class 73 operate south of Edinburgh? (Maybe only to Carstairs or Polmadie?) Have there been any case of class 92s having to be "dragged" because of an ohle failure?

 

[6Z09]

All points noted. Blame poor/limited choice in the short notice to re-arrange plans after the strike was confirmed.

Back to operational matters - in the early SERCO days we saw all sorts of odd motive power on the trains, a class 47 on the Carstairs-Edinburgh portion for example, and an 86 and 87 on the ECS at Euston. Apart from 66, 73 and 92, does/can any other motive power operate with the Mark 5s?

Could a class 73 operate south of Edinburgh? (Maybe only to Carstairs or Polmadie?) Have there been any case of class 92s having to be "dragged" because of an ohle failure?

A 73 has operated Waverley to Carstairs in the past on at least one occasion. (Edinburgh portion of the Lowlander)
The Dellner couplings on the coaches restrict traction to 73s or 92s.

 

[43096]

Back to operational matters - in the early SERCO days we saw all sorts of odd motive power on the trains, a class 47 on the Carstairs-Edinburgh portion for example, and an 86 and 87 on the ECS at Euston. Apart from 66, 73 and 92, does/can any other motive power operate with the Mark 5s?

Only the modified 73s or 92s can couple directly to the sleeper stock; the 66s used are always leading with a 73 between them and the train to provide both ETS and also the coupling adapter.

Have there been any case of class 92s having to be "dragged" because of an ohle failure?

There certainly have been cases in the past where they have been dragged.

 

[Journeyman]

A 73 has operated Waverley to Carstairs in the past on at least one occasion.

I'm pretty sure they can go to Euston if need be, although of course this has never happened, and is extremely unlikely.

 

[JonathanH]

Back to operational matters - in the early SERCO days we saw all sorts of odd motive power on the trains, a class 47 on the Carstairs-Edinburgh portion for example, and an 86 and 87 on the ECS at Euston. Apart from 66, 73 and 92, does/can any other motive power operate with the Mark 5s?

Only the 6 73s and 10 92s can work with the Mark 5s. Any locomotive can haul the 73s or 92s. One of the strangest sights was a 92 being used as a 'translator' vehicle at Crewe for the Mark 5s with a class 47 following the brake lock incident at Stafford

I'm pretty sure they can go to Euston if need be, although of course this has never happened, and is extremely unlikely.

73s could only go to Euston with an 8-coach train, and even then you would probably want two. It would be quite unlikely as you say.

 

[xotGD]

I'm pretty sure they can go to Euston if need be, although of course this has never happened, and is extremely unlikely.

I guess you could stick a Class 90 on top of the 73.

 

[Bald Rick]

I guess you could stick a Class 90 on top of the 73.

In front perhaps. Otherwise there would be a gauging issue

 

[Bill57p9]

Only the 6 73s and 10 92s can work with the Mark 5s. Any locomotive can haul the 73s or 92s. One of the strangest sights was a 92 being used as a 'translator' vehicle at Crewe for the Mark 5s with a class 47 following the brake lock incident at Stafford

73s could only go to Euston with an 8-coach train, and even then you would probably want two. It would be quite unlikely as you say.

For clarity @norbitonflyer there are 2 key limiting factors. The first, as has been stated is the dellner couplings which are only fitted to the 6 73/9s and 10 92s, though these can be used as translator vehicles. Regular example being the Highlander "shed + ed" (66 in front of 73) combo.

The second is the ETS (electric train supply). 92s are the only UK loco class that can deliver sufficient "hotel" power for load 16 (actually probably load 14).
IIRC UK ETS wiring is limited to 600A which would typically be ETH index 100. However 92s can deliver (and Mk5s accept) higher than the usual 1kV of ETS.

So in theory a full load 16 could be top and tailed with 73s (ETS + translator) then something powerful hauling it, but that I believe would exceed passenger train length limits on WCML.

 

[BRX]

Is it possible for a 92 to fail in such a way that it can't provide traction but can still provide the ETS?

 

[Bald Rick]

Is it possible for a 92 to fail in such a way that it can't provide traction but can still provide the ETS?

Yes, innumerable ways!

 

[norbitonflyer]

So in theory a full load 16 could be top and tailed with 73s (ETS + translator) then something powerful hauling it, but that I believe would exceed passenger train length limits on WCML.

Is there something about the 73s ETS wiring which would prevent two of them doubling-heading such a train? (or more, if you want to keep to time over Shap!)

 

[route101]

A 73 has operated Waverley to Carstairs in the past on at least one occasion. (Edinburgh portion of the Lowlander)
The Dellner couplings on the coaches restrict traction to 73s or 92s.

Had a 73 from Glasgow to Carstairs after trouble with a 92.

 

[Bill57p9]

Is there something about the 73s ETS wiring which would prevent two of them doubling-heading such a train? (or more, if you want to keep to time over Shap!)

What I meant by top and tail was for the front 73 to supply the front half and the rear 73 the rear half, electrically independently (so don't connect ETS between the two portions).

Having 2 electrical generators isn't straightforward as the need to be synchronised. This is why HST ETS is wired up in a similar way: there is always a supply gap somewhere in the train.

I am not aware of any locomotives designed to "tandem" generate ETS but happy to be corrected.

The other reason that you couldn't double head the ETS is the current rating of the UK ETS wiring and connectors being either 400A or 600A. As I said above, the 92s can only deliver enough ETS for 2 Mk5 portions by using a higher ETS voltage than the usual 800-1000V.

 

[43096]

Is there something about the 73s ETS wiring which would prevent two of them doubling-heading such a train? (or more, if you want to keep to time over Shap!)

Only a 92 can supply ETS for the full length train.

Normal ETS is ~900V with max 600A current, so approx 540kW of power. The sleepers are rated at 55kW max, or 880kW for the full set. The Class 92 gets round this as they have been modified (back*) to supply 1500V, which gives a current draw of 587A.

* back to 1500V as they were built in this way to supply the EPS night stock that was never used, but were subsequently modified to UK standard 900V ETS.

Having 2 electrical generators isn't straightforward as the need to be synchronised. This is why HST ETS is wired up in a similar way: there is always a supply gap somewhere in the train.

HSTs are not wired in such a way, only one power car (normally the rear one) provides ETS at a time. There is an interlock that prevents ETS being provided simultaneously from both power cars.

 

[alangla]

IIRC, when EWS provided traction for the Mk3 sleepers, a diesel diversion was usually either 2x67s or 60/66 + 67 on the front, a break in the ETS line between coaches 8 & 9 and a 67 on the back supplying ETS to coaches 9-16. Would the Mk5s allow something similar with 73s front & rear supplying half the train each and a 66 on the front supplying traction power?
During the Lamington viaduct diversions, can anyone remember if the train supply was normally from 1 or 2 class 47s?

 

[Journeyman]

IIRC, when EWS provided traction for the Mk3 sleepers, a diesel diversion was usually either 2x67s or 60/66 + 67 on the front, a break in the ETS line between coaches 8 & 9 and a 67 on the back supplying ETS to coaches 9-16. Would the Mk5s allow something similar with 73s front & rear supplying half the train each and a 66 on the front supplying traction power?
During the Lamington viaduct diversions, can anyone remember if the train supply was normally from 1 or 2 class 47s?

ETS is only ever supplied from one loco.

 

[route101]

IIRC, when EWS provided traction for the Mk3 sleepers, a diesel diversion was usually either 2x67s or 60/66 + 67 on the front, a break in the ETS line between coaches 8 & 9 and a 67 on the back supplying ETS to coaches 9-16. Would the Mk5s allow something similar with 73s front & rear supplying half the train each and a 66 on the front supplying traction power?
During the Lamington viaduct diversions, can anyone remember if the train supply was normally from 1 or 2 class 47s?

I took the sleeper in January 2016 and it was two class 47s via the GSW.

 

[Journeyman]

I took the sleeper in January 2016 and it was two class 47s via the GSW.

But the question was how many were providing power to the coaches, and the answer to that is one.

 

[alangla]

But the question was how many were providing power to the coaches, and the answer to that is one.

The question was actually whether one loco on the front was supplying ETS or whether the train was electrically split in the middle with a loco at each end powering half the train. Thinking back, I’m pretty sure you’re right as I can remember it arriving into Glasgow in the morning with either 2x47 or 66+47 on the front and I think nothing on the back until something arrived from Polmadie to take the ECS away.

 

[Journeyman]

The question was actually whether one loco on the front was supplying ETS or whether the train was electrically split in the middle with a loco at each end powering half the train. Thinking back, I’m pretty sure you’re right as I can remember it arriving into Glasgow in the morning with either 2x47 or 66+47 on the front and I think nothing on the back until something arrived from Polmadie to take the ECS away.

I worked for CS for a while and I can state categorically that the trains were never electrically split in the middle.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Looks like an entire trainload of refunds for fort William customers this morning, I haven't looked into the what's why's and whereabouts but just from a morning glance at Facebook seems as if they encountered lowko issues at Edinburgh in the small hours meaning The fort William was an hour late throughout and possibly more

 

[najaB]

Looks like an entire trainload of refunds for fort William customers this morning, I haven't looked into the what's why's and whereabouts but just from a morning glance at Facebook seems as if they encountered lowko issues at Edinburgh in the small hours meaning The fort William was an hour late throughout and possibly more

Was the train re-routed? On realtimetrains.co.uk there are no reports between Newbridge Junction and Westerton.

 

[_toommm_]

Was the train re-routed? On realtimetrains.co.uk there are no reports between Newbridge Junction and Westerton.

If I remember, if it’s late it skips Glasgow QS LL to try and catch up time.

 

[najaB]

If I remember, if it’s late it skips Glasgow QS LL to try and catch up time.

Makes sense. Thanks.