Caledonian Sleeper Class 92's

[TimboM]

92010 left Wabtec Brush Loughborough today and has been moved to Crewe - presumably ahead of the usual testing / car train runs before it goes back on the Sleeper.

Just 92038 left to go in for its modifications now...

One of the two remaining F/L 90s being used on the Sleepers (90042) moved to Crewe today - so would appear 4 of the 5 main runs (including Edinburgh portion) under the wires tonight could be 92 hauled.

92033 has also finished its stint back on the car train (replaced by a 66) and now at Willesden, so may also be back on the Sleeper soon too.

Edit: VERY soon in fact - on the Nbound Highlander tonight.

 

[leomartin125]

I wanted to ask a question:

With the GOBLIN line now electrified, will 6L48 Garston to Dagenham and return work via the GOBLIN line between Gospel Oak and Barking and relieve pressure on the GEML at Stratford, especially when it's 92 operated?

 

[Domh245]

I wanted to ask a question:

With the GOBLIN line now electrified, will 6L48 Garston to Dagenham and return work via the GOBLIN line between Gospel Oak and Barking and relieve pressure on the GEML at Stratford, especially when it's 92 operated?

The GOBLIN is as about electrified as the GWML is at the moment.

 

[59CosG95]

The GOBLIN is as about electrified as the GWML is at the moment.

They'll be needing to redo several structures too! I can imagine that the GOBLIN will take its fair share of electric freight once it all gets done though.

 

[43096]

Just 92038 left to go in for its modifications now...

Two points:
- Sources elsewhere say 92043 is next to go in.
- what makes you think only the sleeper liveried locos are being done?

 

[dubscottie]

Two points:
- Sources elsewhere say 92043 is next to go in.
- what makes you think only the sleeper liveried locos are being done?

You need to change the attitude when you reply to peoples posts. It stinks.

Why don't you share the info the "sources" have given you?

You never do.

 

[TimboM]

Two points:
- Sources elsewhere say 92043 is next to go in.
- what makes you think only the sleeper liveried locos are being done?

My sincere apologies, I should've written that sentence more fully, thus:

"Just 92038 left OF THE SIX DEDICATED SLEEPER POOL 92s to go in for it's modifications now... ...but that's not to say GBRf may do other of their 92s as the mods appear to have been successful."

92043 could well be the next one in, however there was a lot of "chat" at the beginning of the month that it was going to/had been in Loughborough for mods, when in fact it stopped off there for about an hour as part of the move to take 92010 in. 043 then went on to Crewe and AFAIK has been there for the past 4 weeks not doing much.

I'm genuinely interested in whether GBRf will do their other ones - so as dunscottie says please share any reliable info you have/can on this.

As far as I know GBRf only really have 92032 and 92044 in any sort of active use at the moment (in addition to the six Sleeper locos) - 92043 certainly hasn't done much in recent weeks/months. (I'm wondering if it's at Crewe as a Thunderbird-type back-up?)

With 6 modified 92s there's sufficient for the 5 main runs under the wires each night, plus one "spare" / undergoing routine exams etc. In addition there's 87002 and the two 86s for ECS moves and which have subbed in on occasion on the main runs.

Question is whether the cost of the mods / time the locos are out of action is then worth it? 92010, 038 and 044 have all done Sleeper work recently without mods and not had any major issues, so do they need to modify others if only ever going to be used as a back-up now and again?

With the China Clay trains recently won and the 92s getting back on the Sleeper, GBRf could probably do with getting more of their 92s running - e.g. the car train was 66 hauled today as 92033 is back on the Sleeper - and that's got to cost a fair bit in diesel!

So would GBRf be looking to prioritise time/money getting other 92s back in service rather than modify more of them for occasional sleeper work? ...although maybe it's all wrapped up into one - ie one visit to Loughborough for 043 for major exam + mods and then it can get back to doing regular work on whatever it's needed for...?

 

[59CosG95]

While it's all well and good that 92043's the next to go in, I do wonder when 92028 will actually come OUT of Loughborough...

 

[GB]

e.g. the car train was 66 hauled today as 92033 is back on the Sleeper - and that's got to cost a fair bit in diesel!

Just a quick note. A 66 on the car services doesn't necessarily reflect a lack of 92's.

66's are also used either if the 09 pilot is broken or during Fords "shutdown" period.

 

[43096]

While it's all well and good that 92043's the next to go in, I do wonder when 92028 will actually come OUT of Loughborough...

End of March is the plan, apparently!

 

[TimboM]

End of March is the plan, apparently!

It's officially "Stored" currently isn't it? Although probably only because it's been there for so long! Would be good to see it out and about.

Any plans to give 043/044 (or any others) a lick of paint?

 

[59CosG95]

End of March is the plan, apparently!

Hooray! Can't wait to see her in action again.

Any plans to give 043/044 (or any others) a lick of paint?

None that I know of myself, but then again I don't work for either Wabtec or GBRf. I hope so.

 

[TimboM]

Just a quick note. A 66 on the car services doesn't necessarily reflect a lack of 92's.

66's are also used either if the 09 pilot is broken or during Fords "shutdown" period.

Fair point.

In general terms, though, with the majority of the Sleeper locos back on the sleepers and not "relegated" to freight/other duties, plus the new China Clay workings, GBRf would appear to have use for a couple more of their 92s on regular jobs now - which may (or may not) tally with why 92028's repairs seem to be finally getting complete and also the possible 92043 visit to Loughborough.

 

[CosherB]

how many of their 92s could GBRf realistically get back into service (assuming they have the business of course!)?

 

[43096]

My sincere apologies, I should've written that sentence more fully, thus:

"Just 92038 left OF THE SIX DEDICATED SLEEPER POOL 92s to go in for it's modifications now... ...but that's not to say GBRf may do other of their 92s as the mods appear to have been successful."

92043 could well be the next one in, however there was a lot of "chat" at the beginning of the month that it was going to/had been in Loughborough for mods, when in fact it stopped off there for about an hour as part of the move to take 92010 in. 043 then went on to Crewe and AFAIK has been there for the past 4 weeks not doing much.

I'm genuinely interested in whether GBRf will do their other ones - so as dunscottie says please share any reliable info you have/can on this.

As far as I know GBRf only really have 92032 and 92044 in any sort of active use at the moment (in addition to the six Sleeper locos) - 92043 certainly hasn't done much in recent weeks/months. (I'm wondering if it's at Crewe as a Thunderbird-type back-up?)

With 6 modified 92s there's sufficient for the 5 main runs under the wires each night, plus one "spare" / undergoing routine exams etc. In addition there's 87002 and the two 86s for ECS moves and which have subbed in on occasion on the main runs.

Question is whether the cost of the mods / time the locos are out of action is then worth it? 92010, 038 and 044 have all done Sleeper work recently without mods and not had any major issues, so do they need to modify others if only ever going to be used as a back-up now and again?

With the China Clay trains recently won and the 92s getting back on the Sleeper, GBRf could probably do with getting more of their 92s running - e.g. the car train was 66 hauled today as 92033 is back on the Sleeper - and that's got to cost a fair bit in diesel!

So would GBRf be looking to prioritise time/money getting other 92s back in service rather than modify more of them for occasional sleeper work? ...although maybe it's all wrapped up into one - ie one visit to Loughborough for 043 for major exam + mods and then it can get back to doing regular work on whatever it's needed for...?

I think with such a small fleet that getting them all modified would make a lot of sense.

As far as 92038 goes, I don't believe it was overhauled at Brush, I think it was just a paint. The overhauled locos have some noticeable differences: tunnel rings and depot plaques removed, new headlights fitted, "Re-engineered by" worksplate fitted.

As you say, it will be interesting to see what work is done to 92043: is it just the modifications, or a full overhaul as well?

One other point with the 92s in the context of wider GBRf traction and the growth of their business: they are now "maxed out" in terms of buying more 66s, though there may be some more on the continent they could get their hands on. So one other option is more electric haulage under the wires using 92s to free up 66s for use elsewhere, especially now that it seems the reliability issues have been fixed.

It's probably worth an update on the GBRf 92 fleet:
92006 - stored at Brush.
92010 - fully overhauled and modified
92014 - fully overhauled and modified
92018 - fully overhauled and modified
92020 - stored at Brush
92021 - stored at Coquelles
92023 - fully overhauled and modified
92028 - under overhaul at Brush. Due out end of March.
92032 - in service; not modified
92033 - fully overhauled and modified
92038 - in service; not modified
92040 - stored at Coquelles
92043 - at Crewe. Assigned for move to Brush
92044 - in service; not modified
92045 - stored at Brush
92046 - stored at Brush

 

[TimboM]

As far as 92038 goes, I don't believe it was overhauled at Brush, I think it was just a paint. The overhauled locos have some noticeable differences: tunnel rings and depot plaques removed, new headlights fitted, "Re-engineered by" worksplate fitted.

...I'd wondered why 038 still had its tunnel rings and the others didn't. Makes sense now.

Whatever 038 has or hasn't had done to it, it seems on the whole pretty reliable.

It's probably worth an update on the GBRf 92 fleet:
92006 - stored at Brush.
92010 - fully overhauled and modified
92014 - fully overhauled and modified
92018 - fully overhauled and modified
92020 - stored at Brush
92021 - stored at Coquelles
92023 - fully overhauled and modified
92028 - under overhaul at Brush. Due out end of March.
92032 - in service; not modified
92033 - fully overhauled and modified
92038 - in service; not modified
92040 - stored at Coquelles
92043 - at Crewe. Assigned for move to Brush
92044 - in service; not modified
92045 - stored at Brush
92046 - stored at Brush

Thanks for the great info.

There was a post on this thread back in August last year by Rob T that indicated 006 had significant corrosion and 045/46 had been heavily robbed of parts for the other ones, so unlikely to be usable again (or in the near future). Also some question marks over the viability of 020 too.

Any further info/updates on this? I suspect not much will have changed in the last few months...

They've presumably got enough parts amongst the stored 92s to get a couple more back into service if needs be though.

 

[43096]

There was a post on this thread back in August last year by Rob T that indicated 006 had significant corrosion and 045/46 had been heavily robbed of parts for the other ones, so unlikely to be usable again (or in the near future). Also some question marks over the viability of 020 too.

Any further info/updates on this? I suspect not much will have changed in the last few months...

They've presumably got enough parts amongst the stored 92s to get a couple more back into service if needs be though.

I think the view from GBRf was that they could get 12 locos back up and running again from the 16 they own. Obviously with enough money they could get the whole lot done, but whether it is economically viable is debatable. If there's enough demand for locos, though, who knows? There's been plenty of locos "written off" by enthusiasts over the years, only for them to make a comeback - I'm thinking of some of the RES 47/7s that were absolute wrecks before conversion and 43101/104, both of which were a right mess before they came back.

Of the four at Brush, the view seems to be that 92006/20 are likeliest to make a return. I'm also a bit surprised 92021/40 haven't moved from Coquelles now that GBRf is no longer a Eurotunnel subsidiary.

 

[TimboM]

Of the four at Brush, the view seems to be that 92006/20 are likeliest to make a return. I'm also a bit surprised 92021/40 haven't moved from Coquelles now that GBRf is no longer a Eurotunnel subsidiary.

Perhaps the ones in Coquelles aren't in a great shape to be moved? Or (and maybe more likely) if noone's asked them to move them, there's no great need to go to the hassle/expense of repatriating them and finding somewhere in the UK for them until if/when they're needed.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Any plans to give 043/044 (or any others) a lick of paint?

Both of these are planned to get the full modifications.

A total of ten 92s will get the full modifications.

 

[Bayum]

What ever was the problem? Did anyone manage to find out?

 

[dubscottie]

43096 should know!

He knows everything!

 

[TimboM]

Both of these are planned to get the full modifications.

A total of ten 92s will get the full modifications.

I'm assuming that's the 6x sleeper ones + 92028, 92032, 92043 and 92044?

 

[TimboM]

What ever was the problem? Did anyone manage to find out?

I think it was a whole list of different problems, hence the time to resolve. I've a recollection of reading somewhere the modifications/overhauls involve replacing/renovating/repairing hundreds of "bits" (technical term!) not just one or two specific things.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I'm assuming that's the 6x sleeper ones + 92028, 92032, 92043 and 92044?

I believe so.

 

[TimboM]

I've read somewhere - could well be on this thread - that the 92s will need new couplings (buck-eye?) for the new Mk5 coaches.

Is this correct?

If so, how does this work when the 92s have the new coupling arrangements added? Is the new coupling additional (ie so they still have the "standard" couplings and can still haul freight etc if needed) - or does it replace it meaning they can only haul stock with the right couplings?

I'm assuming it's both (bit like the Class 57 Thunderbirds?) - but wondering if anyone knows (yet) how this will work?

 

[43096]

I've read somewhere - could well be on this thread - that the 92s will need new couplings (buck-eye?) for the new Mk5 coaches.

Is this correct?

If so, how does this work when the 92s have the new coupling arrangements added? Is the new coupling additional (ie so they still have the "standard" couplings and can still haul freight etc if needed) - or does it replace it meaning they can only haul stock with the right couplings?

I'm assuming it's both (bit like the Class 57 Thunderbirds?) - but wondering if anyone knows (yet) how this will work?

You are correct that the new sleeper stock will have different couplings - believe they are Dellner type.

The 92s will need them (so another round of mods!). As you say something like the 57 arrangement, or the Europhoenix 37s would be sensible so they can still haul freight.

The first loco to be converted, though, is expected to be 73969 (currently at Brush for collision repairs and alternator mods). It's expected this will go to Velim for testing with the new stock.

 

[TimboM]

The 92s will need them (so another round of mods!). As you say something like the 57 arrangement, or the Europhoenix 37s would be sensible so they can still haul freight.

Thanks. They'll need to have both really as would be operationally restrictive otherwise if the ones with them could only do sleepers and vice versa - also presumably there'll be a transition period when some rakes are new stock/couplings and some are old.

I'm assuming they'll also fit the couplings to some of their other 92s too so they're available if required (e.g. the other 4 it appears are having the mods done)? I'm guessing the option of spot-hiring a DB / Freightliner 90 at short notice in an "emergency" won't be there in future.

Just hoping the new couplings don't make the 92s look as ugly as the 57s' front ends. They always remind me of those tentacle-faced Ood aliens from Doctor Who

 

[43096]

Thanks. They'll need to have both really as would be operationally restrictive otherwise if the ones with them could only do sleepers and vice versa - also presumably there'll be a transition period when some rakes are new stock/couplings and some are old.

I'm assuming they'll also fit the couplings to some of their other 92s too so they're available if required (e.g. the other 4 it appears are having the mods done)? I'm guessing the option of spot-hiring a DB / Freightliner 90 at short notice in an "emergency" won't be there in future.

Just hoping the new couplings don't make the 92s look as ugly as the 57s' front ends. They always remind me of those tentacle-faced Ood aliens from Doctor Who

I would expect all the GBRf 92s will be fitted as hire-in replacements won't be possible; not just for coupler reasons. Only the 92s will be able to supply the full ETS requirement for a full set.

Although we're splitting the fleet into sleeper and non-sleeper on the basis of which carry midnight teal livery, the operational pool split is:
GBSL - GBRf Class 92 sleeper: 92014/028/033
GBST - GBRf Class 92 sleeper/tunnel: 92010/018/023/032/038/043/044
GBET - GBRf Class 92 stored: 92006/020/021/040/045/046
So any operational 92 is technically in a sleeper pool!

 

[TimboM]

I would expect all the GBRf 92s will be fitted as hire-in replacements won't be possible; not just for coupler reasons. Only the 92s will be able to supply the full ETS requirement for a full set.

Although we're splitting the fleet into sleeper and non-sleeper on the basis of which carry midnight teal livery, the operational pool split is:
GBSL - GBRf Class 92 sleeper: 92014/028/033
GBST - GBRf Class 92 sleeper/tunnel: 92010/018/023/032/038/043/044
GBET - GBRf Class 92 stored: 92006/020/021/040/045/046
So any operational 92 is technically in a sleeper pool!

I'd forgotten about the ETS angle (how could I!) - as you say will be necessary for all of the 10 that are operational (if we include 028) to have the mods (which ties in with what Peter Mugridge said above) and - in due course - the couplings.

Interesting 028 is in the "Sleeper only" pool (not that it stops it doing other things), bearing in mind it was repainted into GBRf livery... I think it was also classed until recently at least as 'stored' given how long it's been in Brush for repair (albeit didn't move pool).

Agreed that what livery they are doesn't dictate their use, however I understand the contract requires 80% (I think) of traction used to be in the CS livery, which I'm assuming is why the ones in midnight teal do most of the sleeper work.

Are 92014/028/033 in the non-tunnel pool because they can't run through the tunnel for some technical reason (signalling equipment or whatever) or is it simply just the (somewhat random!) way the pools have been allocated?

 

[TimboM]

Looks like all four main runs under the wires were 92-hauled last night - all on time (+/- a couple of mins). The one remaining Freightliner 90 (90044) was on the Lowlander Edinburgh portion, so not quite a full house (yet):

1M11 Glasgow-Euston: 92023
1M16 Inverness-Euston: 92033
1S25 Euston-Inverness: 92014
1S26 Euston-Glasgow: 92018

Following the post Loughborough-mods pattern of the other locos, 92010 has done its WCML test runs and now on the Dagenham-Garston car train, so all being well won't be too long until that's back available too.