ASLEF Fear "Terrible" Class 73

[Sunbird24]

It isn't. Complete drivel.And no decisions have yet been made on crewing arrangements from next May. The unions have several meetings planned with Serco/Abelio and others in the coming weeks. There are also a good number of jobs being advertised within our depots currently for work/transfer to the sleeper(Obviously with First/Scotrail/Union permission) so everything written here is pure speculation. There are not yet ANY firm plans in place.

The information I passed on comes from SERCO themselves on this http://caledoniansleeper.info/partners/ and related pages so before you start saying no decisions have been made I suggest you check the facts from the people who make the decisions and then publish them.

 

[bigdelboy]

Well there's a youtube of 73961 in motion ... so it does actual move

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEPG7Wgen8I

....

The last few posts seem to have been a little heated. With the various franchise changes in Scotland I guess workers jobs may be disrupted and while the changes may be beneficial to some it may lead to difficulties for others.

Noting from the timeline http://caledoniansleeper.info/timeline/ I guess SERCO will take over in april 2015 with a few "cosmetic" changes for the passengers .... but it will be 2018 before the final changes are in place. I would imagine SERCO would want to keep the general logistics the same initially as immediate introduction of new locomotives, servicing locations could easily go wrong with immediate customer dissatisfaction.

I would have thought continuing with class 67 would be at least a fallback post april ... and with staff transferring between companies etc there may need to be an increased number of class 67 trained drivers to cover for these changes.

However towards 2018 SERCO may well be looking at options of where to do servicing.


.... On a lighter note .... given sunbird's useful and prolific postiing's on class 68 I am somewhat expected a suggestion of some new build greener class 68's to take over the sleepers

 

[Sunbird24]

Well there's a youtube of 73961 in motion ... so it does actual move

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEPG7Wgen8I

....

The last few posts seem to have been a little heated. With the various franchise changes in Scotland I guess workers jobs may be disrupted and while the changes may be beneficial to some it may lead to difficulties for others.

Noting from the timeline http://caledoniansleeper.info/timeline/ I guess SERCO will take over in april 2015 with a few "cosmetic" changes for the passengers .... but it will be 2018 before the final changes are in place. I would imagine SERCO would want to keep the general logistics the same initially as immediate introduction of new locomotives, servicing locations could easily go wrong with immediate customer dissatisfaction.

I would have thought continuing with class 67 would be at least a fallback post april ... and with staff transferring between companies etc there may need to be an increased number of class 67 trained drivers to cover for these changes.

However towards 2018 SERCO may well be looking at options of where to do servicing.


.... On a lighter note .... given sunbird's useful and prolific postiing's on class 68 I am somewhat expected a suggestion of some new build greener class 68's to take over the sleepers

On the subject of the new stock, I have not studied the contract in detail, but the stock is coming from CAF. Have they supplied to UK before? I believe a 5-year maintenance contract was mentioned. This may imply that a new depot could be built specifically for servicing the new CAF stock and may not be located at Inverness(no room for further expansion).
As for the 68's, a new engine which meets the new emission requirements and fits in the existing body is now available but no further details yet. Current locomotive orders mean any further orders will not be deliverable until sometime in 2016 at the earliest unless existing orders get delayed. By that time a lot of Dual locomotives will have been built and tested and it could be that a version of the 88 with a more powerful diesel engine than the initial 950HP would be the ideal candidate for haulage throughout.

 

[edwin_m]

On the subject of the new stock, I have not studied the contract in detail, but the stock is coming from CAF. Have they supplied to UK before?

CAF built the mechanical parts of the 332s and 333s, though I think Siemens was the main contractor so CAF may not have had much direct exposure to the market. More recently CAF in its own right has supplied the replacement DMU fleet for Northern Ireland, the new trams in Edinburgh and the replacements on Midland Metro.

 

[Maxfly]

The information I passed on comes from SERCO themselves on this http://caledoniansleeper.info/partners/ and related pages so before you start saying no decisions have been made I suggest you check the facts from the people who make the decisions and then publish them.

But it doesn't say Inverness is to close in that partners link either...... One depot in London and four in scotland.

 

[Sunbird24]

But it doesn't say Inverness is to close in that partners link either...... One depot in London and four in scotland.

That rumour information came from this thread http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1911769&postcount=44 which I referenced in an earlier post. The Inverness depot will not close but the contract for the sleeper stock may not exist after 2018 if a new depot is built elsewhere for the new CAF stock. This is not a rumour, just speculation on my part.

 

[Altnabreac]

On the subject of the new stock, I have not studied the contract in detail, but the stock is coming from CAF. Have they supplied to UK before? I believe a 5-year maintenance contract was mentioned. This may imply that a new depot could be built specifically for servicing the new CAF stock and may not be located at Inverness(no room for further expansion).
As for the 68's, a new engine which meets the new emission requirements and fits in the existing body is now available but no further details yet. Current locomotive orders mean any further orders will not be deliverable until sometime in 2016 at the earliest unless existing orders get delayed. By that time a lot of Dual locomotives will have been built and tested and it could be that a version of the 88 with a more powerful diesel engine than the initial 950HP would be the ideal candidate for haulage throughout.

The only information we have on maintenance is from the Franchise brochure which states:

The Franchisee will contract with Alstom to provide maintenance during the first three years of the contract which is expected to be extended to the end of the franchise term

This suggests that they do not intend to enter into a maintenance contract with CAF for the new stock but it perhaps isn't 100% ruled out.

Certainly seems possible they intend to keep the existing maintenance regime with staff TUPEing to Alstom until the new stock is introduced in 2018.

At that point who knows? No doubt more information will emerge in due course.

 

[fgwrich]

CAF built the mechanical parts of the 332s and 333s, though I think Siemens was the main contractor so CAF may not have had much direct exposure to the market. More recently CAF in its own right has supplied the replacement DMU fleet for Northern Ireland, the new trams in Edinburgh and the replacements on Midland Metro.

A little more than that - CAF built the bodies and bogies for the 332 & 333 fleets, with Siemens providing the electrical components - The same proven bodies/bogies are still around today in the form of the NIR 3CK & C4Ks fleets (both built to UK loading gauge with wider bogies and footboards).

CAF Has built loco hauled stock though, having supplied IE with the Intercity Mk4 stock and 'Daffy Duck' DVTs for the Dublin to Cork services. Though I hope the Caley Sleeper stock comes with better bogies though - the main source of complaints for a while with the IE ones.

 

[bangor-toad]

More recently CAF in its own right has supplied the replacement DMU fleet for Northern Ireland,

And as a passenger, they're rather nice to use.
I commute to/from work on these units and they're quite nice. The seats are comfortable, the windows are large and the ride isn't bad. OK, my trip is only ever a maximum of 30 minutes rather than many hours but these units are for short trips and they do their job well.


Cheers,
Mr Toad

 

[doningtonphil]

What are the differences between the brush loco conversions and the rvel conversions? One similarity is that they both seem to be WAY behind schedule.
when will brush start converting the locos for the sleeper contract?

 

[HSTEd]

One appears to have a pair of QSK-19s, while the other appears to have a single 1500hp MTU diesel.

No idea which is which.

 

[jopsuk]

the RVEL conversions for Network Rail have the the pair of QSK-19s and have lost all the high level pipe work and jumpers.

The Brush conversions for GBRailfreight have the single MTU engine and a new set of high level jumpers.

Why the two don't have different sub class numbers is a mystery

 

[notadriver]

Are QSK-19s reliable enough for use in a locomotive ? There's a good chance one will be shut down in a Voyager and I believe they've been derated from 750 to 700 bhp to improve reliability as well as economy. A loco engjne seems to be designed to operate at maximum power for long periods of time - not sure about the QSK-19 ...

 

[HSTEd]

They aren't the ultra-compact QSK-19 installations from Voyagers.
These are the normal ones that are far larger and thus should hopefully be easier to maintain properly and less prone to various overheat related malfunctions.

 

[doningtonphil]

the photos I have seen of the cabs look very different. RVEL ones look all new whereas the BRUSH ones seem to have the original brake and controller handles. Is it just the cab desks that are different or is the gubbins underneath the desk different too?

 

[bigdelboy]

the photos I have seen of the cabs look very different. RVEL ones look all new whereas the BRUSH ones seem to have the original brake and controller handles. Is it just the cab desks that are different or is the gubbins underneath the desk different too?

RVEL made a great deal about how they have gone to the trouble of doing an ergonomic cab redesign. I suspect RVEL havan't

Why the two don't have different sub class numbers is a mystery

Couldn't agree more for the 7396x's ... with 7395x there may not be any more so perhaps could stay as is. I believe there was a completely different 73/9

I've attempted to gather a table of differences below. It isn't authorative. As 73961 seemed to have a peak a vaccum to air buffer (could also have done steam heat perhaps?). Understood 73 may have had vacuum brakes as built but could have lost them at some point (maybe 73/2's didn't have them).

<TABLE>
<TROW><TH>REMANUFACTURER</TH><TH>RVEL</TH><TH>BRUSH</TH></TROW>
<TROW><TD>SERIES</TD><TD>7395x<TD></TD>7395x</TD></TROW>
<TROW><TD>COLOUR</TD><TD>HIDEOUS YELLOW /TD></TD>Essentially GBRF Blue</TD></TROW>
<TROW><TD>DIESEL ENGINE</TD><TD>Two 750 hp QSK-19<TD></TD>1500hp MTU</TD></TROW>
<TROW><TD>TRACTION MOTORS</TD><TD>Unknown</TD><TD>EE546 Retained</TD></TROW>
<TROW><TD>CAB</TD><TD>ERGO REDESIGN</TD><TD>Not known</TD></TROW>
<TROW><TD>Connection Cables</TD><TD>Simplified</TD><TD>Enhanced</TD></TROW>
<TROW><TD>Brakes</TD><TD>?</TD><TD>Vacuum not retained</TD><TD>
<TROW><TD>ETS/ETH</TD><TD>.Not Known</TD><TD>Not Known</TD></TROW>
<TROW><TD>Acoustic Noise Level</TD><TD>Not Known</TD><TD>Understood to be low</TD></TROW>
<TROW><TD>Cab Windows</TD><TD>Not known</TD><TD>Same Old(? Draughty)</TD></TROW>
<TROW><TD>Numbers</TD><TD>2</TD><TD>2 up to 5 more in progress</TD></TROW>
<TROW><TD>More Conversions</TD><TD>NR one 1 more</TD><TD>GBRF own over 10 more</TD></TROW>
</TABLE>

( Oh dear this table hasn't worked ... i'll have aother go sometime!)

 

[ainsworth74]

Are QSK-19s reliable enough for use in a locomotive ? There's a good chance one will be shut down in a Voyager and I believe they've been derated from 750 to 700 bhp to improve reliability as well as economy. A loco engjne seems to be designed to operate at maximum power for long periods of time - not sure about the QSK-19 ...

They aren't the ultra-compact QSK-19 installations from Voyagers.
These are the normal ones that are far larger and thus should hopefully be easier to maintain properly and less prone to various overheat related malfunctions.

Though for all that aren't Voyagers amongst the most reliable long distance trains in the country? So the engine problems can't be that severe?

 

[krus_aragon]

( Oh dear this table hasn't worked ... i'll have aother go sometime!)

I've put it in [code] tags for a monospace font, and aligned it with spaces:

REMANUFACTURER    RVEL               BRUSH
SERIES            7395x              7395x 
COLOUR            HIDEOUS YELLOW     Essentially GBRF Blue 
DIESEL ENGINE     Two 750 hp QSK-19  1500hp MTU 
TRACTION MOTORS   Unknown            EE546 Retained 
CAB               ERGO REDESIGN      Not known 
Connection Cables Simplified         Enhanced 
Brakes            ?                  Vacuum not retained 
ETS/ETH           Not Known          Not Known 
Acoustic Noise    Not Known          Understood to be low 
Cab Windows       Not known          Same Old(? Draughty) 
Numbers           2                  2 up to 5 more in progress 
More Conversions  NR one 1 more      GBRF own over 10 more

 

[bigdelboy]

I've put it in [code] tags for a monospace font, and aligned it with spaces:

Brilliant. Thanks! I've made a typo correction.

REMANUFACTURER    RVEL               BRUSH
SERIES            7395x              7396x 
COLOUR            HIDEOUS YELLOW     Essentially GBRF Blue 
DIESEL ENGINE     Two 750 hp QSK-19  1500hp MTU 
TRACTION MOTORS   Unknown            EE546 Retained 
CAB               ERGO REDESIGN      Not known 
Connection Cables Simplified         Enhanced 
Brakes            ?                  Vacuum not retained 
ETS/ETH           Not Known          Not Known 
Acoustic Noise    Not Known          Understood to be low 
Cab Windows       Not known          Same Old(? Draughty) 
Numbers           2                  2 up to 5 more in progress 
More Conversions  NR one 1 more      GBRF own over 10 more

Thanks ... I think Brush/GBRF have gone from the start point to replace the engine; do whatever mods seems necessary or add value quickly; and do a complete rebuild from top to bottom to ensure existing parts/wiring are good. They have built up a significant fleet of 73's and I assume have the option of either rebuilding half and having a good set of spares for remainder or redoing the complete fleet. it even looks as if even a 'JA' might be able to receive this treatment.

RVEL I believe were more into trying out technologies on a couple of locomotives; and have therefore gone for a more thorough job which may have reworked the control systems more and generally changed more components. It may be RVEL are looking to apply these technologies elsewhere ... i'd assume an a/c conversion to dual mode could be a big winner. And the RVEL technology would probably be closer to doing that than the Brush Conversion technology. Or it could be they have taken too long and ended up with a "Betamax" locomotive ... better than VHS but didn't catch on ... they probably won't find enough unconverted 73's not owned by GBRF to get a big enough run to be worthwhile to do more. I think the ERGO cab may even have been approved by ASLEF, which is perhaps why the GBRF cab is hated if no such treatment was made there.

Taking within reason whatever time is necessary on these to get them right is sensible in my opinion .... back fixing mistakes can be far more expensive.

 

[HSTEd]

Though for all that aren't Voyagers amongst the most reliable long distance trains in the country? So the engine problems can't be that severe?

I believe the Voyagers are in fact the most reliable diesel unit overall, let alone just for long distance types.

 

[Chris125]

You can see the GBRf/Brush cab in the following photos from Clive Hanley, which show the minimal changes made:

http://evergreen.zenfolio.com/p570453151#h23b0da99

http://evergreen.zenfolio.com/p570453151#h394c3de9

The RVEL cab couldn't be more different, and does seem to reflect the more comprehensive work those locos are receiving:

http://paulbigland.zenfolio.com/p119809187/h390de3fe#h390de3fe

Chris

 

[Class 66's]

Of the current units on UK tracks.

Which is the best unit to haul the sleeper away from the overhead juice?

What about a 57?

 

[bigdelboy]

What about a 57?

For the portion going to inverness with around 8 coaches this would seem like a good fit to me. For the others it might be overkill. Interestingly the 57 has an ETH index of 100; great for pendelinos but apparently unsuitable for coaches with 400amp wiring, though I assume this stock has 600amp.

Beyond that it might be a question of reliability, economy, and whether personal familiar with the same. If GBRF were already operating a number of them then choice might be different,

In the contact of this thread looking for driver controller's I seen a driver's appraisal of the "terrible" class 73 locomotive .. (about half way down a long page).

The locomotive's versatility held no bounds and with a 1600/600hp capability could haul any train within reason and on diesel power could conduct the most delicate of movements - shunting within a yard or working with a track-relayer out on a work site. I never tired of working on these locomotives - they were clean, had a comfortable cab (and it was easy to change ends walking through the electric and diesel compartment). A truly remarkable locomotive with a design well ahead of its time...

http://www.davidheyscollection.com/page96.htm

What also was here was an image of he older cab to to contrast with the refurbishments above ...

http://www.davidheyscollection.com/userimages/0000-g-burch-class73-guide-1.jpg

The Brush version has the same basic controllers layout but there seem to be a lot of buttons where knobs and switches used to be. I'm actually a bit surprised the headcode box was retained in the Brush refurb.

I now understand RVEL about 3 years ago had intended to converted 10-12. This article in 2011 happens to show a pair of GBRF 73's.
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/business/single-view/view/repowered-class-73-to-roll-out-next-year.html

REMANUFACTURER    RVEL               BRUSH
Loco Owner        NationalRail       GBRF
SERIES            7395x              7396x 
COLOUR            HIDEOUS YELLOW     Essentially GBRF Blue 
DIESEL ENGINE     Two 750 hp QSK-19  1500hp MTU 
TRACTION MOTORS   Unknown            EE546 Retained 
CAB               ERGO REDESIGN      Similar to old but with buttons
Driver Interface  NForce             Unknown
Control Interface Nat. Rlwy Eqpt Co. Unknown
Headcode Box      Replaced by glass  Retained (with a button!)
Driving Sides     Left Only?(TBC)    Both 
Connection Cables Simplified         Enhanced 
Brakes            ?                  Vacuum not retained 
ETS/ETH           Not Known          Not Known 
Acoustic Noise    Not Known          Understood to be low 
Cab Side Windows  Same Old           Same Old 
Numbers           2                  2 up to 5 more in progress 
More Conversions  NR own 1 more      GBRF own over 10 more

 

[Paulinbelper]

It's my understanding that RVEL produced the twin QSK engined 'Genset' class 73's to put into a UK context what their American parent company has being doing for a while, i.e. re-engining older locos with modern genset power packs which can be switched from a single engine for light engine movements etc, or both engines for moving a full train load etc. This is considered to be fuel efficient and lead to operating cost (fuel) savings. This has not been done in the UK before so the 73's are really being used as proof of concept machines, particularly by Network Rail who have an aging fleet of loco's, operating their increasing number of test/monitoring trains, which will need replacing in the near future (i.e. class 31's and 37's which are 50 years old).

If this experiment is successful there's potential orders for either more 73's or even re-engining the class 31's along the 'genset' principle for Network Rail's continuing use.

The GBRf rebuilds are more conventional (c.f. Class 57 rebuilds) in terms of replacing the old EE lump with a modern MTU one, which generates much more power in a similar footprint to the old unit. This is about making the 73 more useful away from the 3rd rail, and as highlighted elsewhere in this thread, the ETH capability will provide useful Type 3 haulage for the new sleeper services.

From a technological perspective the RVEL loco's are much more interesting and may (if successful) mark the start of a new type of diesel loco in the UK.

 

[87019Chris]

Can I just say that the 47's they have would be okay for the sleepers, and have been whispered about *platform chatter* gets coat and runs for life

 

[CC 72100]

Can I just say that the 47's they have would be okay for the sleepers, and have been whispered about *platform chatter* gets coat and runs for life

Reliability? About 20 years ago maybe, but nowadays would they really be reliable enough for the job?

 

[Bodiddly]

Duffs back on the Highland beds? Let's go the whole hog and have a steam heat 37 and 6 Mk1 compos waiting for it in Inverness ready to take the bashers on to Kyle.

Love to see it but it ain't gonna happen! :cry::cry::cry:

 

[455driver]

Duffs back on the Highland beds? Let's go the whole hog and have a steam heat 37 and 6 Mk1 compos waiting for it in Inverness ready to take the bashers on to Kyle.

Love to see it but it ain't gonna happen! :cry::cry::cry:

Bit modern for me, now if you were talking about steam heat 26s?

 

[Bodiddly]

Bit modern for me, now if you were talking about steam heat 26s?

Och, I suppose they'll have to do!

 

[edwin_m]

Are 47s allowed on the West Highland? Back in the day didn't they have to use Deltics instead if there was an ETH rake going there?