Caledonian Sleeper Class 92's

[TimboM]

there was a grey liveried class 92 outside willesden tmd this morning also just a bit further north 2 caledonian green liveried locos were running light towards willesden also

The grey one would be 92044. It's the only GBRf operational grey one in service at the moment (92043 is in Loughborough for mods/overhaul). It came up from Dollands Moor yesterday where it'd been to assist 92032 bringing the China Clay tanks through the tunnel on Tue night/Wed mornings (needs 2x 92 for the tunnel due to its weight).

If it was about 11.05-11.20am you saw the "midnight teal" ones heading to Willesden then I understand these were 92010 and 92014, having worked the s/bound services last night and then taken off the ECSs after their drag backs to Wembley Intercity depot from Euston.

 

[Far north 37]

The grey one would be 92044. It's the only GBRf operational grey one in service at the moment (92043 is in Loughborough for mods/overhaul). It came up from Dollands Moor yesterday where it'd been to assist 92032 bringing the China Clay tanks through the tunnel on Tue night/Wed mornings (needs 2x 92 for the tunnel due to its weight).

If it was about 11.05-11.20am you saw the "midnight teal" ones heading to Willesden then I understand these were 92010 and 92014, having worked the s/bound services last night and then taken off the ECSs after their drag backs to Wembley Intercity depot from Euston.

it was 92044 only thing that threw me off was it was showing as being a gbrf coloured loco on uk rail info

 

[59CosG95]

it was 92044 only thing that threw me off was it was showing as being a gbrf coloured loco on uk rail info

All I can say is that there's no better informant to a loco's livery than your own eyes...

 

[BRX]

Nice video. At least one of the 66s, if not both, were DIT presumably, but that's a fair bit of horespower on the front there!

Obviously whatever caused 92032 to fail at Grayrigg on Wednesday didn't take long to fix.

The 66s were DIT yes - interestingly I think they were what had brought the train down as far as wembley, so it would seem that the 92 was not really necessary if that pair were continuing to Dollands. I wondered if it's still in a probationary period to make sure it can do the trip without problems, before being relied on for the working. Nice to see a 92 under its own power on the south london line though - has become a bit of a rarity recently, except for light engine movements.

 

[TimboM]

All I can say is that there's no better informant to a loco's livery than your own eyes...

...particularly where the GBRf 92s are concerned as Rail UK Info has most of them wrong. It has 8 of the 10 non-sleeper liveried ones down as being in GBRf Blue/Yellow, when only 2 are currently (92032 and 028).

It also has 92040 [stored] as being in some First dark blue livery - clearly a typo... and being really pedantic for the one it does have 'correct' as being in grey (92006, also stored) it says it has EPS (European Passenger Services) markings whereas they're actually SNCF...

Being supremely picky, it also doesn't note that 92038 is the only one of the midnight teal ones which still has its Tunnel Rings, nor does it note that 92028 has "GB Railfreight" cab-side emblems whereas on 92032 they say "Europorte" (for now at least).

 

[TimboM]

The 66s were DIT yes - interestingly I think they were what had brought the train down as far as wembley, so it would seem that the 92 was not really necessary if that pair were continuing to Dollands. I wondered if it's still in a probationary period to make sure it can do the trip without problems, before being relied on for the working. Nice to see a 92 under its own power on the south london line though - has become a bit of a rarity recently, except for light engine movements.

Not a probationary period as such. GBRf started this working off when they won it earlier in the year with just a single 92. They had some hefty delays (and penalties) in third rail land though due to challenges getting up North Pole bank whilst dealing with switching from 25kv to 3rd rail, red signals, wet rails etc.

So the revised loaded northbound plan is:
- 2x 92s bring the train through the tunnel (needs 2 due to its weight). Has been 92032/044 since the contract started.
- A 66 brings the train up from Dollands Moor to Wembley (with the 92 DIT)...
- Locos switch at Wembley and the 92 leads to Carlisle (with the 66 now DIT)...
- 92 detaches at Carlisle and the 66 continues to Irvine (no wires).

I think on the return normally the 92 re-joins at Carlisle and then leads all the way back to Dollands Moor as the load is lighter and its downhill down North Pole bank, so less issues.

However, this week, 92032 failed near Grayrigg on the way up, and 66727 continued with the train on its own after a DRS 66 rescued 92032 and dragged it to Carlisle. 66748 went up on a VSTP from Liverpool (Tuebrook) to meet the train at Carlisle on its way back, so not sure if whatever issue 92032 had meant it couldn't lead the train back (or at least be relied upon)? That said, 92032 was evidently working ok in the youtube video by the time it got to third rail land!

I also believe the 92 needs to go back to Dollands Moor in any respect as the empty train needs taking back through the tunnel (and 66s can't do that). The 66s went from Dollands Moor to Hoo Junction Yard soon after getting there.

 

[87015]

Not a probationary period as such. .

No, much more of a ban on the 92 working northbound to Wembley than a probation!! Bear in mind GB have a cap on delay penalties, i'm sure they'd quite happily have stayed with the 92 and left others to take the hits units wake.

 

[BRX]

Not a probationary period as such. GBRf started this working off when they won it earlier in the year with just a single 92. They had some hefty delays (and penalties) in third rail land though due to challenges getting up North Pole bank whilst dealing with switching from 25kv to 3rd rail, red signals, wet rails etc.

So the revised loaded northbound plan is:
- 2x 92s bring the train through the tunnel (needs 2 due to its weight). Has been 92032/044 since the contract started.
- A 66 brings the train up from Dollands Moor to Wembley (with the 92 DIT)...
- Locos switch at Wembley and the 92 leads to Carlisle (with the 66 now DIT)...
- 92 detaches at Carlisle and the 66 continues to Irvine (no wires).

I think on the return normally the 92 re-joins at Carlisle and then leads all the way back to Dollands Moor as the load is lighter and its downhill down North Pole bank, so less issues.

However, this week, 92032 failed near Grayrigg on the way up, and 66727 continued with the train on its own after a DRS 66 rescued 92032 and dragged it to Carlisle. 66748 went up on a VSTP from Liverpool (Tuebrook) to meet the train at Carlisle on its way back, so not sure if whatever issue 92032 had meant it couldn't lead the train back (or at least be relied upon)? That said, 92032 was evidently working ok in the youtube video by the time it got to third rail land!

I also believe the 92 needs to go back to Dollands Moor in any respect as the empty train needs taking back through the tunnel (and 66s can't do that). The 66s went from Dollands Moor to Hoo Junction Yard soon after getting there.

There must be a fairly significant benefit in using a 92 to power the train from London to Carlisle, to justify all that faffing around and the fact that the 66 can't be doing anything else at the same time.

 

[TimboM]

There must be a fairly significant benefit in using a 92 to power the train from London to Carlisle, to justify all that faffing around and the fact that the 66 can't be doing anything else at the same time.

I think a major element of why they still have the 92 on for the WCML section is the china clay tanks when fully loaded with the usual 20-wagon rake is something in the region of 1,800+ tonnes. I believe that NR would require a double header if it was going to be 66s hauling it due to some of the steep inclines on the route (e.g. Shap) and to keep to timings, whereas a 92 is allowed to run it solo.

Also, under "Plan A", GBRf still had to get a 66 from somewhere in the North to Carlisle (as they don't have a permanent base there) to take the train forward to Irvine and then return the 'empties' to Carlisle the following day, so whilst "Plan B" ties a 66 up a bit longer now it's added to the train at Dollands Moor, they were still having to bring one in anyway.

I imagine a fair bit of diesel is saved too (c. 600 mile round trip Wembley-Carlisle).

 

[BRX]

It would be interesting to know what the actual cost difference is, of electric vs diesel, on a journey like that.

Shame the N Pole issues can't be solved with keeping 2 92s on it from the tunnel to Wembley!

 

[SC318250]

If the 66 is DIT behind 92 from wembley and it operated via Beattock and Paisley. Could it not be hauled under wires to Barassie loop, or better if 92 was on front with 66 DOR, then would be perfect option

 

[TimboM]

It would be interesting to know what the actual cost difference is, of electric vs diesel, on a journey like that.

Shame the N Pole issues can't be solved with keeping 2 92s on it from the tunnel to Wembley!

I'd wondered about that option, as the train comes through the tunnel with 2x 92s and one comes off to add the 66 on at Dollands Moor. Would be simpler to keep them on then just take one off at Wembley. You'd think if you kept the two 92s on until Wembley it would help deal with the heavy train whilst switching power sources, getting red lights half way up the bank etc.

As it seems pretty straightforward and not being done, I'm assuming whatever issues are impacting the one loco are deemed to have too high a risk of impacting both at the same time.


Regarding the cost difference, the Class 66s do something in the region of 1 MPG. So doing the 600 mile round trip the 92 does would be approx. 600 gallons or c.2,700 litres. I would expect GBRf get diesel a lot cheaper than we do at the forecourt, but let's say it's 70-75p/litre - that would be a fuel bill of c.£2k. If it had to be a double-header, it would be more. I'm assuming Network Rail charge more for electric trains for the cost of the juice they're using up - no idea how much, but that would need to come off this number to get a rough idea of the difference per trip.

 

[TimboM]

If the 66 is DIT behind 92 from wembley and it operated via Beattock and Paisley. Could it not be hauled under wires to Barassie loop, or better if 92 was on front with 66 DOR, then would be perfect option

There's no doubt some good reason why they've chosen this option - time and cost will be key factors no doubt. That route is a fair bit longer I think, and perhaps the logic is that it'll need a 66 on at some point, so it may as well go the more direct route.

It also avoids the climb up Beattock, which did cause even the 92s some problems with the china clay train back in the days DB worked it with 92s if conditions/signals weren't favourable.

 

[BRX]

92044 heading down light engine to Dollands Moor from Willesden junction just now.

 

[TimboM]

92044 heading down light engine to Dollands Moor from Willesden junction just now.

Aye, going down to assist 92032 bringing the loaded china clay tanks through the tunnel tonight I believe.

UPDATE: Not only assisting 92032 through the tunnel, but then taking the train on to Irvine this week, with 66727 for company for the 3rd rail and north of Carlisle sections.

 

[leomartin125]

Aye, going down to assist 92032 bringing the loaded china clay tanks through the tunnel tonight I believe.

Anymore news from 92028? People always saying 'it may be released from Loughborough soon!' but still no sign, and it's been there for years, so why the sudden speculation that it's going to leave?

 

[TimboM]

Anymore news from 92028? People always saying 'it may be released from Loughborough soon!' but still no sign, and it's been there for years, so why the sudden speculation that it's going to leave?

I've not seen any really recent speculation, although there was a mention on here a few weeks back (by 43096 IIRC) that it was due out end of March.

Bearing in mind 92043 has been in since 7th March for the "modifications" which usually take 4-6 weeks, and they've got a couple of 73/9s in for rework/repair too (not to mention lots of other non-GBRf work) then I suspect they're pretty busy and timings may have slipped a little. We're also now into the Easter school holidays period.

Irrespective of any 'intel', looking at the chain of events and where we are now, it's a reasonable expectation based on a operational requirements and a guesstimate of workloads/priorities that 028 will be making an appearance pretty soon.

92028 went in to Brush soon after its infamous failure on 1M11 in mid-April 2015, and was re-liveried fairly soon after, so presumably the plan then was to get it overhauled and back out fairly promptly.

However, the issues with the 92s (and 73s) then took over and all available Wabtec/Brush efforts and Class 92 expertise will have been on getting those sorted. In addition, with the 92s off the sleepers and the 90s hired-in, GBRf had 'sleeper' 92s available to work on non-sleeper workings (which at that time were really only one Dagenham car train per day and sleeper ECS).

With both the priorities of sorting the 'sleeper' 92s and no need for extra 92s whilst they were doing that, it makes sense why 92028 got "stuck" in Brush for so long.

Where we are now, though, 5 of the 92s have now been modified and are regularly working the sleeper, plus GBRf have won the china clay contract from DB which needs a couple of 92s for 2-3 days each week. There's also 2x car trains currently on at least one day a week, which presumably could use a 92 (on days this happens at the moment the 2nd one is 66 hauled).

Added to this, by all accounts the plan is for the remaining 3 operational 92s (92032, 038 and 044) which haven't been into Brush yet to go in at some point for their mods, so again will ideally need 043 and 028 back out so the next one(s) can come in, and also enable the remaining 2x F/L 90s to be off-hired ASAP.

It makes some sense, therefore, that with the operational demand for 92s having increased and most of the 'sleeper' locos sorted and back working on the sleepers, that 92028 has - after 2 years(!) - made it's way back to somewhere near the top of the list.

I wouldn't be hugely surprised if it and/or 92043 were out in the next couple of weeks or so - and who knows they might look quite similar too....??

 

[68011]

some confirmed workings

Sunday 9th April
87002 worked 1S26 21:39 London Euston to Glasgow Central to Wembley EFOC for 92044 forward to Glasgow via the ECML.
This sat at Newcastle from 02:48 until 06:12 having arrived 52 minutes early it then sat for 3 hours 24 minutes departing 150 minutes late awaiting for 1M16 to arrive a little over 3 hours late having been delayed in the Highlands, the driver off this returns North on 1S26.

92010 worked 1S25 20:28 Euston to Inverness to Wembley for 92014 forward to Edinburgh via the ECML

Friday 14th April
92033 worked 1M11 23:40 Glasgow Central to London Euston

 

[TimboM]

GB Railfreight have launched a new logo/branding (see their homepage for an example: http://www.gbrailfreight.com/home/ ). Maybe another option for 92043 to appear in when it eventually surfaces from Brush...??

 

[BRX]

92044 took the china clay tanks down to wembley last night, and then on to Dollands this evening.

 

[gsnedders]

92014 worked the southbound Lowlander last night, FWIW. (As in, leaving on the 20th, arriving 21st.)

 

[TimboM]

92044 took the china clay tanks down to wembley last night, and then on to Dollands this evening.

The loaded working up to Irvine on Wednesday morning was severely delayed - was 2h 46m late leaving Dollands Moor, lost more time at Wembley and eventually arrived at Irvine just over 4 hours late.

I've seen some 'reports' (rumours?) that this was due to 92032 failing (possibly in/around the tunnel). Not sure if anyone has any more reliable info on this?

Both locos (044 and 032) are needed to bring the tanks through the tunnel due to their weight, so not sure if 92044 was always down for the main run north, or stepped in when (if) 92032 failed. Appears 92032 and the china clay tanks don't get on too well...!

 

[BRX]

Are the 92s doing the runs up and down the ECML on the nights when the sleeper is diverted? Or does that present them with a whole new set of electrical peculiarities which they struggle with?

 

[43096]

Are the 92s doing the runs up and down the ECML on the nights when the sleeper is diverted? Or does that present them with a whole new set of electrical peculiarities which they struggle with?

They are working the East Coast trains: I had 92014 that way just over a week ago.

 

[Far north 37]

Are the 92s doing the runs up and down the ECML on the nights when the sleeper is diverted? Or does that present them with a whole new set of electrical peculiarities which they struggle with?

90049 was on the lowlander this morning 87002 dragged it into euston

 

[GW43125]

92028 went in to Brush soon after its infamous failure on 1M11 in mid-April 2015, and was re-liveried fairly soon after, so presumably the plan then was to get it overhauled and back out fairly promptly.

Could you please enlighten/remind me of the "infamous" 1M11 failure?

 

[59CosG95]

Could you please enlighten/remind me of the "infamous" 1M11 failure?

IIRC, 028 'sat down' at Preston in quite spectacular fashion, though I'm sure someone know more than I do!

 

[JonathanH]

Could you please enlighten/remind me of the "infamous" 1M11 failure?

IIRC, 028 'sat down' at Preston in quite spectacular fashion, though I'm sure someone know more than I do!

There was probably more than one.

On the night of 14/15 April 2015, it got as far as Milton Keynes from Glasgow - http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2139560&postcount=40

The next week, it failed at Colwich going north
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2146926&postcount=163

I think they tried a little bit more with it and gave up
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2159015&postcount=269

 

[TimboM]

Are the 92s doing the runs up and down the ECML on the nights when the sleeper is diverted? Or does that present them with a whole new set of electrical peculiarities which they struggle with?

They are working the East Coast trains: I had 92014 that way just over a week ago.

90049 was on the lowlander this morning 87002 dragged it into euston

For the 5 nights (4x Sundays and BH Monday) during this spell of ECML diversions since the beginning of April, of the 20 runs (2 each way per night) 18 (90%) were 92 hauled and 2 (including the S/Bound Lowlander last night) were 90 hauled.

92010, 014, 023, 033, 038 and 044 have all been in on the East Coast action.

So think it's safe to say the 92s are OK working the ECML.

 

[TimboM]

Could you please enlighten/remind me of the "infamous" 1M11 failure?

I was rolling one or two up in my mind into one, but as JonathanH has kindly referenced, there were a few pretty bad failures involving 028 in April 2015 before it finally got banished to Loughborough.

The one on 15 April ended up with passengers getting turfed off at Milton Keynes and 92032 rescuing to take the ECS (and 028) on to Wembley. There's a few photos/videos around if you have a 'google'; for example this one on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDcMfdnN1wU

Then a week later - on its first passenger-hauling run after the above event - there was another spectacular failure and rescue via a Freightliner 66, with the train finally terminated at Crewe c.7 hours late - this Flickr post by 'The Railway Journal' gives a decent account of the main events of that night.

https://flic.kr/p/rXxBNZ

92028 went to Brush (possibly after time for one more failure) fairly soon after that... and is still there! Must be coming up to its second anniversary pretty soon.