Caledonian Sleeper Class 92's

[CosherB]

There were 50 90s - still are technically, but a few are surely way beyond use (90050 springs to mind and a couple in Crewe IEMD).

https://flic.kr/p/VmAZFW (Freightliner 90050 in Crewe Basford Hall courtesy D5341Mcrat beginning of this month. Total wreck, including some fire damage.)

https://flic.kr/p/V4cHkc (DB 90025 in Crewe IEMD courtesy Gordon Edgar - been there 12 years apparently...!)

I know - hence why I questioned if there are only 48 realistically able to operate in the future, which would still be a big ask!

 

[TimboM]

I know - hence why I questioned if there are only 48 realistically able to operate in the future, which would still be a big ask!

I think there's one or two others verging on the "uneconomical to repair" at Crewe IEMD - 90027 and a couple of others spring to mind.

There's 15 stored in total - 13 DB ones at Crewe, then the two Freightliner ones, 050 and 041. I think 041 (Leeds Midland Road) is a recoverable one, and a fair few of the DB ones are probably viable - indeed some are "stored" on a medium-term/temporary basis for major repairs. There's been a couple like 90020 and 90037 that have come out of storage recently, so hope for some of those.

You'd think a working fleet of c.40 (80%) may be realistic/achievable all other (economic) factors permitting. Although need to bear in mind there'll be 15 ex-Greater Anglia 90s up for grabs soon which I'm assuming would be a more attractive option for those wanting more 90s than trying to fix up some of these wrecks.

Anyway, there must be a 90 thread somewhere

 

[BRX]

044 on the china clay tanks this evening. Has pretty consistently been 032 for some time now.

 

[43096]

No-one can lease you a third rail capable heavy freight loco though.

And how much freight is there moving exclusively over 3rd rail routes? Very little - and none that cannot be handled by diesels.

Arguably the Channel Tunnel capability is their unique feature but tunnel freight volumes are minimal and trials have been done with other traction (Vectron and Prima) that could provide an alternative if required.

 

[87015]

92010 broke tonight, 86101 to work to Glasgow according to posts on facebook.

 

[BRX]

And how much freight is there moving exclusively over 3rd rail routes? Very little - and none that cannot be handled by diesels.

Diesel can go everywhere, of course. My point is centred around the idea that moving freight by electric traction where possible is better than by diesel, in principle. If you disagree on that, then so be it.

The question shouldn't be how much freight is moving exclusively over 3rd rail routes, but how much freight spends a significant portion of its journey on 3rd rail routes, and the answer is a lot. The 92s are obviously ideally suited to routes with a combination of 3rd rail and overhead electric. Routes that are only partly electrified can be worked with a loco swap, if the will is there.

Now I know that you'll probably say that swapping locos en route wastes time and creates expense and doesn't add up economically. But, GBRf have obviously decided it's worth it on the china clay trains for example. So, to me that signals that it's not necessarily crazy, and maybe if other operators had access to (potentially refurbed) 92s, or even if more 92s were available to GBRf, then perhaps we'd see more widespread use of them than you might think. I do't know. Anyway, hence the comments about DB's mothballed ones, and the possible benefits of encouraging them to make them available for use.

I live next to the south London line which as I'm sure you're aware is one of the main freight routes across London. So aside from fossil fuel / climate change concerns, I can't help thinking that air quality might benefit from a higher proportion of the many freight trains that pass every day being hauled under electric power. 6 or 7 years ago, some were, under DB control. Now, none are (except the China Clay). Why's that? Apparently because DB have decided they are too much hassle (admittedly, transfer of some services to HS1 is also part of the story). But we are now watching with interest as GBRf, perhaps, prove that with the right modifications they can prove reliable and feasible.

 

[Scotrail84]

92010 broke tonight, 86101 to work to Glasgow according to posts on facebook.

What Facebook page is that?

 

[TimboM]

92010 broke tonight, 86101 to work to Glasgow according to posts on facebook.

What Facebook page is that?

92010 made it all the way from Glasgow to Euston and then took the Highlander ECS back to Wembley if I'm not mistaken, so would be interested to know a what point it broke [EDIT: ignore me, you said broke tonight, which would make more sense]

92014 is at Willesden too - although hasn't worked since Wed morning, so possibly stopped for whatever reason.

By the time trains get moving again tonight, they may well have fixed 92010 anyway!

 

[TimboM]

Diesel can go everywhere, of course. My point is centred around the idea that moving freight by electric traction where possible is better than by diesel, in principle. If you disagree on that, then so be it.

The question shouldn't be how much freight is moving exclusively over 3rd rail routes, but how much freight spends a significant portion of its journey on 3rd rail routes, and the answer is a lot. The 92s are obviously ideally suited to routes with a combination of 3rd rail and overhead electric. Routes that are only partly electrified can be worked with a loco swap, if the will is there.

Now I know that you'll probably say that swapping locos en route wastes time and creates expense and doesn't add up economically. But, GBRf have obviously decided it's worth it on the china clay trains for example. So, to me that signals that it's not necessarily crazy, and maybe if other operators had access to (potentially refurbed) 92s, or even if more 92s were available to GBRf, then perhaps we'd see more widespread use of them than you might think. I do't know. Anyway, hence the comments about DB's mothballed ones, and the possible benefits of encouraging them to make them available for use.

I live next to the south London line which as I'm sure you're aware is one of the main freight routes across London. So aside from fossil fuel / climate change concerns, I can't help thinking that air quality might benefit from a higher proportion of the many freight trains that pass every day being hauled under electric power. 6 or 7 years ago, some were, under DB control. Now, none are (except the China Clay). Why's that? Apparently because DB have decided they are too much hassle (admittedly, transfer of some services to HS1 is also part of the story). But we are now watching with interest as GBRf, perhaps, prove that with the right modifications they can prove reliable and feasible.

Lots of good points.

Slight issue with the argument, though, is that GBRf are having to use the 66s on the loaded northbound china clays between Dollands Moor and Wembley because the 92s had issues on the third rail. They tried it a few times but after having some very hefty delays and I think a stern word, if not instruction from Network Rail, the 66s now do that leg.

That said, the china clay tanks are a particularly heavy working and there's an unfortunate set of circumstances at North Pole bank that cause the issues, so I'm sure they'd be fine with other freight (and indeed were for several years).

 

[TimboM]

044 on the china clay tanks this evening. Has pretty consistently been 032 for some time now.

After 032 failed in early may, 044 did the next two, then 032 did three on the spin, then 044 did this one, so I think they share it about. Of course both are needed on each one to bring it through the tunnel.

They also use 044 on the Sleeper now and again and whilst 032 has done it on rare occasions, I think it's a little bit more "temperamental" so 044 also gets use away from the China Clays.

92032 certainly (not sure about 044) has also been spot-hired a fair bit recently to DB who have had a glut of their (thin) 92 fleet being in Crewe depot.

There's a strong irony there in DB needing to borrow GBRf's 92s as they don't have enough working ones of their own...!

 

[43096]

92006 is currently in the yard at Brush with polo mints removed and holes filled; perhaps a trip into the paintshop next. Definitely on its way back.

 

[TimboM]

92006 is currently in the yard at Brush with polo mints removed and holes filled; perhaps a trip into the paintshop next. Definitely on its way back.

Good news!

 

[TimboM]

92023 has just headed back to Willesden from Crewe having had a week on the Dagenham-Garston cars. Fully expect 92028 (still at Crewe) to take over that working this coming week for its first revenue-earning work in over 2 years.

Triple Grey 92044 looks like it's on the Down Lowlander (1S26) tonight having taken in the Highlander ECS, with the Highlander (1S25) having 92033 at the front.

By my reckoning as well as those two, there's four other 92s at Willesden this evening 92010, 014, 023 and 032. Must've been a while since they had half-a-dozen of them in/around Wembley/Willesden/Euston.

 

[Sarahs_Railway]

92 018 stabled on the middle road at Edinburgh Waverley today. Made the place look so much tidier than the ultra scruffy Freightliner Skip that was parked there during the week!
Pic of 018 as ever on link below
https://www.flickr.com/photos/149563882@N07/

 

[SC318250]

I know this is a 92 thead but would love GB to take on some of the 90s that are lying at Crewe

90021/026/035 only need new wheelsets/bogeys

90025/027/033 I think are 3 that wont ever come back should more be needed
Think 033 has been stripped off most spare parts

Could the 90 be retractioned to make it a better loco or would it be cheaper to build new?

 

[Far north 37]

I know this is a 92 thead but would love GB to take on some of the 90s that are lying at Crewe

90021/026/035 only need new wheelsets/bogeys

90025/027/033 I think are 3 that wont ever come back should more be needed
Think 033 has been stripped off most spare parts

Could the 90 be retractioned to make it a better loco or would it be cheaper to build new?

maybe for some of there intermodal work but the electric locos gbrf need are for the sleepers and channel tunnel work and the china clay tanks which once the mark 5 sleepers come in only class 92 locos are going to be able to operate these services maybe possibly they could work the garston car train but id imagine they would stick to the same class of loco especially when they have the option to reinstate more 92's back into mainline service

 

[TimboM]

maybe for some of there intermodal work but the electric locos gbrf need are for the sleepers and channel tunnel work and the china clay tanks which once the mark 5 sleepers come in only class 92 locos are going to be able to operate these services maybe possibly they could work the garston car train but id imagine they would stick to the same class of loco especially when they have the option to reinstate more 92's back into mainline service

Aye - I think it's quite clear GBRf have firmly put their A/C traction strategy behind the Class 92s.

Looks like they'll have a dozen when they've sorted 006/020. That's 6/7 on the sleepers, a couple on the tunnel traffic/china clays, one on the cars and two or three others for possible intermodals/new work. Not sure they've got the demand or necessity to branch out into another type of loco.

Also let's not forget they've been borrowing a couple of 90s from Freightliner for a long time now, so there's an angle there if they really needed some (although I know Freightliner would like them back at some point!)

The other 'issue' is that DB are using their 90s (or at least the ones in better nick) and there's been a couple come out of Crewe IEMD recently that had only been stored needing new bogies etc. - 90020/037 for example. I can't see DB wanting to give up the ones in good nick and reasonably easy to return to service - they'll want to keep/use them themselves.

I can only see them being prepared to off-load the wrecks (that are probably beyond economic repair) or the 92s they have no use for (but as discussed previously cannot see that happening).

There'll be the Greater Anglia 90s available soon too I believe - will be interesting to see where they go. They should be a better prospect than the rust buckets in Crewe!

Also, I very much doubt anyone would re-traction 90s. They're pretty good at what they do (mixed traffic, decent enough pulling power, 110 mph top speed etc.) and are often run double-headed these days on the heavier trains. There's new alternatives out there already (Class 88s - which can do pretty much all that and a bit more, plus run on diesel) or if you want serious grunt, there's the 92s.

 

[Far north 37]

Aye - I think it's quite clear GBRf have firmly put their A/C traction strategy behind the Class 92s.

Looks like they'll have a dozen when they've sorted 006/020. That's 6/7 on the sleepers, a couple on the tunnel traffic/china clays, one on the cars and two or three others for possible intermodals/new work. Not sure they've got the demand or necessity to branch out into another type of loco.

Also let's not forget they've been borrowing a couple of 90s from Freightliner for a long time now, so there's an angle there if they really needed some (although I know Freightliner would like them back at some point!)

The other 'issue' is that DB are using their 90s (or at least the ones in better nick) and there's been a couple come out of Crewe IEMD recently that had only been stored needing new bogies etc. - 90020/037 for example. I can't see DB wanting to give up the ones in good nick and reasonably easy to return to service - they'll want to keep/use them themselves.

I can only see them being prepared to off-load the wrecks (that are probably beyond economic repair) or the 92s they have no use for (but as discussed previously cannot see that happening).

There'll be the Greater Anglia 90s available soon too I believe - will be interesting to see where they go. They should be a better prospect than the rust buckets in Crewe!

Also, I very much doubt anyone would re-traction 90s. They're pretty good at what they do (mixed traffic, decent enough pulling power, 110 mph top speed etc.) and are often run double-headed these days on the heavier trains. There's new alternatives out there already (Class 88s - which can do pretty much all that and a bit more, plus run on diesel) or if you want serious grunt, there's the 92s.

once the new sleeper stock comes in i cant see gbrf needed any older electric traction unless for ecs.
id imagine they would want to get there hands on more diesel traction if anything

 

[TimboM]

once the new sleeper stock comes in i cant see gbrf needed any older electric traction unless for ecs.
id imagine they would want to get there hands on more diesel traction if anything

That last batch of 66s they bought (6677x) aren't doing too much at the moment - they can make a start with those... then the various ones they have on hire to Colas and DCR...

But agree, I cannot see them needing any more than the dozen 92s for the time being unless something dramatically changes (which it always can of course).

 

[TimboM]

92006 is currently in the yard at Brush with polo mints removed and holes filled; perhaps a trip into the paintshop next. Definitely on its way back.

Tim R-T-C has put a couple of photos of 92006 on Flickr looking very much like it's getting prepped for the paint shop (mints off/holes filled as you say, fan vents, headlights etc. covered up).

Trust he doesn't mind me linking them here:

https://flic.kr/p/WbZdEK
https://flic.kr/p/Va1spZ

There's also a pic from late May of 92020 in the same spot - less obvious signs of work being done, but possibly some step-ladders around it (or they might just have been there anyway). Could just have been sat there as 020 and 006 have been shuffled around the yard at Loughborough for years now, however as it's also on it's way back could have been having some work done on it too....

https://flic.kr/p/TLzSRL (Credit: Alan Smith)

 

[gsnedders]

TimboM: I know it's all in the above 40 pages, but could you summarise the current status of all of GBRf's 92s? I thought 006 was one of the ones in the car park before I looked back! (I'm just assuming you can write such a thing quicker than I can piece it together from the previous 40 pages!)

 

[43096]

TimboM: I know it's all in the above 40 pages, but could you summarise the current status of all of GBRf's 92s? I thought 006 was one of the ones in the car park before I looked back! (I'm just assuming you can write such a thing quicker than I can piece it together from the previous 40 pages!)

I'll give it a go....

Overhauled and modifications completed, in traffic: 92010/014/018/023/028/033
At Brush for overhaul: 92006/020/038/043
Not overhauled, in traffic: 92032/044
Stored at Brush: 92045/046
Stored at Coquelles: 92021/040

Hope that was what you're after!

 

[TimboM]

I'll give it a go....

Overhauled and modifications completed, in traffic: 92010/014/018/023/028/033
At Brush for overhaul: 92006/020/038/043
Not overhauled, in traffic: 92032/044
Stored at Brush: 92045/046
Stored at Coquelles: 92021/040

Hope that was what you're after!

What 43096 says...!

To add to the above:

038 (went in last week) and 043 (went in 7th March) have been in fairly recent service; whereas 006 (stored Feb 2006) and 020 (stored April 2001) are being "resurrected" after many years in store.
Will be interesting to see which order these come out, and if they appear with Dellner couplings... I'd expect 038/043 to make it out before 006/020 as the latter presumably still need a fair bit of work.

021/040/045/046 were all stored at the same time as 020 (Apr 2001) but their futures look a lot less rosy.

028 is hopefully ready to go as it did some test runs after it's 2 year stay "inside" Brush, went back to Loughborough for a couple of weeks in late May/early June for some tweaks, then has completed another couple of weeks testing. It's been sat in Crewe Holding Sidings for the past week, I think whilst 92023 had first dibs on the Dagenham-Garston cars to prove itself so it could get back on the Sleepers (did the cars last week, went back to Willesden on Sunday).
Hopefully 92028 will now take over from the "relief" 66 on the cars very soon and start earning its keep again... So 028 is sort of in traffic, but to be confirmed when it has a few hundred new Fords behind it!

 

[43096]

What 43096 says...!

To add to the above:

038 (went in last week) and 043 (went in 7th March) have been in fairly recent service; whereas 006 (stored Feb 2006) and 020 (stored April 2001) are being "resurrected" after many years in store.
Will be interesting to see which order these come out, and if they appear with Dellner couplings... I'd expect 038/043 to make it out before 006/020 as the latter presumably still need a fair bit of work.

Of note is that 92006 is the last of the ex-SNCF machines to return to service.

 

[TimboM]

Of note is that 92006 is the last of the ex-SNCF machines to return to service.

So I'm assuming the split was as follows:

SNCF: 92006/010/014/018/023/028/033/038/043
European Passenger Services (aka Eurostar): 92020/021/032/040/044/045/046

Bar 032 and 044 which have been kept in service throughout I think, the EPS ones must have pretty low mileage - but given they were stored c.5 years before the others when Nightstar and then a buyer never materialised makes sense that they're less likely to return (92020 excepted).

 

[Train man]

Would 92006/020 get the GB railfright liverey or the CS midnight teal?.

 

[TimboM]

Would 92006/020 get the GB railfright liverey or the CS midnight teal?.

Unless someone has some inside info, we'll have to wait and see...!

There's also always the chance with GBRf that there's other livery options: Hector Rail Grey/Orange is always a possibility (although in the UK I expect they'll want to keep the GBRf branding)... Or they might even have one or two in "classic" (but repainted) Triple Grey - GBRf always like an interesting/retro livery or two. Wishful thinking I suspect on that one, though!

I think the plan was always to have 6 in Midnight Teal (which they have already - 010/014/018/023/033/038) so likelihood the rest will be in GBRf Yellow/Blue (latest version as per 92028).

That said, the way it's transpired suggests it's more like 7 locos they need on the Sleeper and I understand GBRf are contractually bound to have 80% of Sleepers hauled by locos in the CS livery, they may always do another one in Midnight Teal?

That said, 80% is pretty easily achieved by 6 "regulars" and the odd guest appearance by a GBRf (or AN Other) livery.

 

[43096]

So I'm assuming the split was as follows:



SNCF: 92006/010/014/018/023/028/033/038/043

European Passenger Services (aka Eurostar): 92020/021/032/040/044/045/046

Correct!

 

[leomartin125]

Unless someone has some inside info, we'll have to wait and see...!

There's also always the chance with GBRf that there's other livery options: Hector Rail Grey/Orange is always a possibility (although in the UK I expect they'll want to keep the GBRf branding)... Or they might even have one or two in "classic" (but repainted) Triple Grey - GBRf always like an interesting/retro livery or two. Wishful thinking I suspect on that one, though!

I think the plan was always to have 6 in Midnight Teal (which they have already - 010/014/018/023/033/038) so likelihood the rest will be in GBRf Yellow/Blue (latest version as per 92028).

That said, the way it's transpired suggests it's more like 7 locos they need on the Sleeper and I understand GBRf are contractually bound to have 80% of Sleepers hauled by locos in the CS livery, they may always do another one in Midnight Teal?

That said, 80% is pretty easily achieved by 6 "regulars" and the odd guest appearance by a GBRf (or AN Other) livery.

Get one of these new 92's and put it in Midnight Star livery

 

[TimboM]

Get one of these new 92's and put it in Midnight Star livery

Not heard of that one - do you mean Nightstar?