Well according to this thread it looks like the 73 replacement for the sleeper is in the pipeline:
www.railforums.co.uk
But being bi-modes presumably the good thing about 99s is they can stay on the front part of the train for the whole journey, with additional locos coming in for the other portions as now. As more of Scotland is electrified they can also use wires for more of the journey going forward.
More than enough surely?
Mark 5s may be cleared for 110 mph....but, having ridden over the bogie in one of them from Euston to Edinburgh at 87 mph maximum, I don't think I would want to do it at any higher speed than that!
I can't imagine the flakes having worse brakes than a 66, especially given the former has rheostatic braking, something the sheds do not.
Yes, the only reason the 31/37/47 ETH versions were /4 was a coincidence in that it was the next sub-class available for each of those classes (standard 31s numbered up to 31327, 37s numbered up to 37308, 47s numbered up to 47381).
Nah guess not. Still going to need a bit of testing though, as are the passenger brake timings.
Not unless you can find a way for them to either enter or leave Waverly from/to the east.
99131 onwards
The only reason ETH classes 31, 37 and 47 were all /4 was because the ranges up to /3xx were aleady used by non-ETH examples (nineteen class 31/0s and 227 31/1s, 308 37/9s, 298 47/0s and 81 47/3s)
Could they not run via the Suburban, either on arrival or departure?
No reason why not, especially with the bi-mode capability. I have personally experienced that albeit in the 1990s (2x class 37 on load 15).
As we know, the Royal Scotsman and Britannic Explorer do not need an ETS loco to haul them as they are both provided with a genny van. Wouldn’t the more sensible option be to provide the British Pullman with a genny van so any 99 (or any loco for that matter) could haul all of these Belmond trains?
agreedMark 5s may be cleared for 110 mph....but, having ridden over the bogie in one of them from Euston to Edinburgh at 87 mph maximum, I don't think I would want to do it at any higher speed than that!
More 73s with modern traction electrical equipment for 3rd rail land then!Well according to this thread it looks like the 73 replacement for the sleeper is in the pipeline:
Class 99s on Caledonian Sleeper
Allegedly, GBRf have the contract again for the sleeper, and are looking to order special 99s for the service. This is bad news for all Class 73 lovers…
You're going to have to explain this jargon I'm afraid.
RA7 - same as a 66 or 92. 73s are RA6
They could, (or the changeover could take place somewhere else, like Mossend Yard, as in days of yore). But given the amount of shunting that would still be necessary at Waverley, why bother?
The main reduction in shunting and loco attachments will be for the sleepr going beyond Edinburgh. So the loco from London not having to come off at Waverley if it is a 99 instead of a 92. Makes sense that portion would then go round the loop South of Waverley. The other loco moves would be as now adding a day coach for one portion and taking both portions onwards. Indeed they arguably do not need to switch to 99s unless the knitting goes far enough to make it worthwhile and/or identical locos for all portions makes life easier !.
It would probably have to be that way round. I'm not sure a 99 on diesel has enough power to haul 16 carriages and provide ETS
Good point - half of all 16 coaches would be easier for the 99. Although it then it is not far I wonder what gradients are involved ?..
Probably not at WCML speeds, but it might be able to cope at low speeds around the Suburban, it's only a short distance and not particularly time-critical, especially if it saves time by reducing the number of shunt moves. However it's all getting a bit speculative since the ETS 99s don't exist yet.
Are those maths right?
