Could class 67s be used on the GWR Cornish Night Riviera Sleeper?

[paultucker1012]

moderator note split from

GWR Cornish Night Riviera Sleeper and GWR Class 57 updates from Long Rock

Hi all. Some may recognise me from other forums but due to consistent technical problems, I've got fed up so joined here after months of observation! Just to say for those who don't know, I am a GWR employee, user and enthusiast and modeller and dont post politics or speculation but some of my...

www.railforums.co.uk

Would DB be willing to sell or lease out a few 67s at a reasonable price, bearing in mind that they seem to see them as boxes of 66 spares?

 

[Melancholia]

Are 67s even cleared for all the routes the Night Riviera runs on?

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Would DB be willing to sell or lease out a few 67s at a reasonable price, bearing in mind that they seem to see them as boxes of 66 spares?

And judging by all the failures/substitutions on the TfW services are they actually any more reliable?

 

[fgwrich]

And judging by all the failures/substitutions on the TfW services are they actually any more reliable?

No, and the 67 debate has been done to death each time the 57s hit a rough patch. As before (and IIRC) DB would only supply them if they undertook maintenance and supplied the Drivers, which wasn’t what FGW / GWR wanted.

Can the what locos should be used on the sleeper debate be kept in the speculation section?

 

[paultucker1012]

As a fairly new member, I wasn't aware that this had been asked before.

 

[43096]

No, and the 67 debate has been done to death each time the 57s hit a rough patch. As before, DB would only supply them if they undertook maintenance and supplied the Drivers, which wasn’t what FGW / GWR wanted.

What evidence is there that DB would want to supply the drivers for the sleeper if they provided 67s? They don’t for TfW.

 

[Ashley Hill]

What evidence is there that DB would want to supply the drivers for the sleeper if they provided 67s? They don’t for TfW.

When hired by FGW to work on the Taunton - Cardiff stoppers many years ago they were only driven by EWS drivers.

 

[43096]

When hired by FGW to work on the Taunton - Cardiff stoppers many years ago they were only driven by EWS drivers.

That was a short-term (well meant to be!) contract, which is rather different to long-term resourcing for the sleepers. There is, however, an argument that the GWR sleeper should have traction and drivers contracted out, in much the same way as GBRf operate the Caledonian Sleepers, as operation is now so different from the day-to-day TOC operation.

 

[popeter45]

what speed would you need?
as said in the original thread, i think a class 99 would make more sense especially if any further partial electrification is on the cards in the next 30 years

 

[BerkshireRails]

what speed would you need?
as said in the original thread, i think a class 99 would make more sense especially if any further partial electrification is on the cards in the next 30 years

Considering the Night Riviera is only pathed at 75mph, all you need is a loco able to do 75mph with Electric Train Supply for the Mark 3s unless you plan to fit a gen coach on it. At which point you might as well get some DVTs and fit ETS gen's in there and get rid of the top and tailing and just keep the 57s on the Country End.

 

[43096]

Considering the Night Riviera is only pathed at 75mph, all you need is a loco able to do 75mph with Electric Train Supply for the Mark 3s unless you plan to fit a gen coach on at which point you might as well get some DVTs and fit ETS gen's in there and get rid of the top and tailing and just keep the 57s on the Country End.

Where are those DVTs coming from and how are you pushing the train considering the 57s lack any form of multiple or push-pull capability?

 

[Zomboid]

If you've got an ETS generator DVT (with suitable control methods) can then you can put pretty much anything on the other end, so just hire in a freight loco.

 

[BerkshireRails]

Where are those DVTs coming from and how are you pushing the train considering the 57s lack any form of multiple or push-pull capability?

The DVTs could come from the Chiltern Silver sets once they are replaced by the Mk5As. I was under the impression that the 57s had MU based on them having the MU jumpers located on the Buffer Beam.

 

[Russel]

Given the speed isn't really needed, would 66s be a better option?

 

[Cowley]

Given the speed isn't really needed, would 66s be a better option?

They can’t supply electricity for heating/aircon etc so you’d then need generator coaches.

 

[HSTEd]

They can’t supply electricity for heating/aircon etc so you’d then need generator coaches.

Well Chiltern have ETS generator fitted DVTs with AAR multiple working equipment that are going to be going spare in the nearish future. Alternatively there are still a couple stored that could probably be acquired for conversion.

You'd have to fit the existing Mark 3 sleepers with AAR cables, but then you'd have push pull sets that can work with Class 66 or almost any other modern freight locomotive that is convenient.

Service would be operationally far simpler too, since all the propelling moves etc would be gone.

 

[BerkshireRails]

Well Chiltern have ETS generator fitted DVTs with AAR multiple working equipment that are going to be going spare in the nearish future. Alternatively there are still a couple stored that could probably be acquired for conversion.

You'd have to fit the existing Mark 3 sleepers with AAR cables, but then you'd have push pull sets that can work with Class 66 or almost any other modern freight locomotive that is convenient.

Service would be operationally far simpler too, since all the propelling moves etc would be gone.

The many reason I thought of using a DVT instead of Top and Tailing the train is because it would save some 70 miles in total for 57s per round trip, as it is 35 miles 75 chains from Reading to London and another 35 miles 75 chains back to Reading, plus you're doing this twice a night for six days a week, which is an extra 850 miles per week for the 57s. You could contract GBRF with the 99s so you can take advantage of the wires between London and Newbury/Chippenham/Bristol Parkway, which would allow fewer engine hours, which is good as fewer diesel emissions are being emitted. The Class 99s are ARR MU locos, the 99s are better suited than the 88s or 93s due to the steep Devon Banks which would be a challenge for the 88s and 93s with there limited power and the 93s batteries require the OLE to recharge so you can more or less ignore them as they only last 10 minutes of traction power.

 

[s491]

I was under the impression that the 57s had MU based on them having the MU jumpers located on the Buffer Beam.

On the 57/6's? Don't think so.

 

[Russel]

They can’t supply electricity for heating/aircon etc so you’d then need generator coaches.

Fair enough, how do they work on the Scottish sleepers?

 

[Trainbike46]

Fair enough, how do they work on the Scottish sleepers?

The CS sleepers operate with ETS from the 92s and 73s, where a 66 is used this is always together with a 73 and the ETS is supplied by the 73.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jul 2025 ==

I could see advantages in switching to 99s plus DVTs for the Night Riviera; you'd need fewer locos, and could run on electricity where OHLE is present

If the theorised 99s with ETS capability do get ordered they could also supply the ETS for the train, no need to bother with generators in the DVTs

 

[BerkshireRails]

I could see advantages in switching to 99s plus DVTs for the Night Riviera; you'd need fewer locos, and could run on electricity where OHLE is present

If the theorised 99s with ETS capability do get ordered they could also supply the ETS for the train, no need to bother with generators in the DVTs

Although you wouldn't need ETS gen in the DVT it can't harm having it in the DVT to allow the diesel engine in the loco to be shut down while standing for long periods without effecting the ETS supply to the carriages, it would also allow for a rescue loco not to have to provide ETS since the DVT will be doing that.

 

[danielnez1]

I'm getting a bit of sinking feeling that there won't be a replacement for the Mk3 Sleepers on the Night Riviera tbh

As it’s been mentioned, getting the Mk3 Sleepers to work with the AAR system would be a likely easy way for them to work with a 66 etc. push pull with a DVT generator, but would it be worth spending that sort of money on 40+ year old coaches at this stage? Would another batch of Mk5 sleepers be ordered anytime soon?

 

[Zomboid]

I don't forsee any new equipment for the sleeper any time soon. The mk3s are getting on a bit, but it's not necessarily impossible to keep them going for a good while yet. Just for comparison, they're still using 1950s cars for The Canadian, and similarly old RDCs for the Sudbury - White River.

 

[HSTEd]

I'm getting a bit of sinking feeling that there won't be a replacement for the Mk3 Sleepers on the Night Riviera tbh

As it’s been mentioned, getting the Mk3 Sleepers to work with the AAR system would be a likely easy way for them to work with a 66 etc. push pull with a DVT generator, but would it be worth spending that sort of money on 40+ year old coaches at this stage? Would another batch of Mk5 sleepers be ordered anytime soon?

Fitting the AAR jumpers/cables to the sleepers and obtaining two or three ETS generator fitted DVTs is probably much cheaper than almost any other intervention.
Indeed, if the Chiltern Mark 3s are going out of service soon you wouldn't even have to rewire the seating carriages because you could just replace them with Chiltern examples.

I imagine the payback period wouldn't be particularly long given it would enable a significant simplification of the operation.

 

[danielnez1]

Fitting the AAR jumpers/cables to the sleepers and obtaining two or three ETS generator fitted DVTs is probably much cheaper than almost any other intervention.
Indeed, if the Chiltern Mark 3s are going out of service soon you wouldn't even have to rewire the seating carriages because you could just replace them with Chiltern examples.

I imagine the payback period wouldn't be particularly long given it would enable a significant simplification of the operation.

Corrosion repair is something else to factor too. I hope sleepers don't become extinct, perhaps something like the Sunrise Seto would be a successor.

 

[HSTEd]

Corrosion repair is something else to factor too. I hope sleepers don't become extinct, perhaps something like the Sunrise Seto would be a successor.

Corrosion repair will have to happen either way, of course (Chiltern examples have already been rebuilt quite recently!).

I am skeptical any government in the near future will dare make the choice to kill the Sleeper, and this would at least be a way to make it cost somewhat less money.

 

[BerkshireRails]

Fitting the AAR jumpers/cables to the sleepers and obtaining two or three ETS generator fitted DVTs is probably much cheaper than almost any other intervention.
Indeed, if the Chiltern Mark 3s are going out of service soon you wouldn't even have to rewire the seating carriages because you could just replace them with Chiltern examples.

I imagine the payback period wouldn't be particularly long given it would enable a significant simplification of the operation.

It would have a side effect of allowing the Sleeper to be used on local services again between Plymouth and Penzance in the Down direction, as the hinge door issues would have been abolished on the seating carriages, as the Chiltern coaches have sliding plug doors.

 

[irish_rail]

The only way the Sleeper to the far south west is getting binned is if we get a big decrease in daytime journey time. And with all the clamour to bring down journey times in other parts of the UK, the south west is a real outlier in getting no increases in speed / faster services with fewer stops. If anything we get more trains serving all stations, you only need to look at how many "intercity" services now call at the likes of Saltash. So I'd say the sleeper is very safe for a long while yet.

 

[BerkshireRails]

The only way the Sleeper to the far south west is getting binned is if we get a big decrease in daytime journey time. And with all the clamour to bring down journey times in other parts of the UK, the south west is a real outlier in getting no increases in speed / faster services with fewer stops. If anything we get more trains serving all stations, you only need to look at how many "intercity" services now call at the likes of Saltash. So I'd say the sleeper is very safe for a long while yet.

Isn't there talk of wiring between Newton Abbot and Plymouth to improve journey times, as the IETs will not have to work so hard over Herndon Bank? It takes three hours to cover the 131 miles between Exeter and Penzance, and for comparison, it takes two hours to cover the 173 miles between Exeter and Paddington. So if any section should have line speed improved, it is Exeter to Penzance, which tends to be 60-75mph.

 

[Royston Vasey]

Corrosion repair will have to happen either way, of course (Chiltern examples have already been rebuilt quite recently!).

I am skeptical any government in the near future will dare make the choice to kill the Sleeper, and this would at least be a way to make it cost somewhat less money.

The Chiltern examples I witnessed at Marylebone recently were quite visibly rotting, and in fact it seemed worst around the door modifications. The current Riviera coaches actually seem to have much less corrosion!