Caledonian Sleeper Class 92's

[cj_1985]

Where was that?

on Flickr ( https://www.flickr.com/photos/35502...xGR-WxhPYb-WxadgJ-VjhsUm-WAsj8k-WAsiNH-WAmTWp )

 

[CosherB]

on Flickr ( https://www.flickr.com/photos/35502...xGR-WxhPYb-WxadgJ-VjhsUm-WAsj8k-WAsiNH-WAmTWp )

Thanking you!

How the mighty fall ..... who'd have thought that DBC would be hiring locos.

 

[TimboM]

may be cheaper to maintain, but I was under the impression the 68 and 88s were cost more to buy/lease than the likes of a 66

I was comparing more to the 37s (and previously 20s) they've largely replaced on the flasks. To be honest I have no info on comparative costs, but I'd assume those old locos take a fair bit of upkeep and are hungry on the diesel. Anyway, as you say, back to 92s...!

 

[TimboM]

Thanking you!

How the mighty fall ..... who'd have thought that DBC would be hiring locos.

This Flickr post from yesterday from "Nightshiftworker" https://flic.kr/p/WxadgJ gives more info on the current dire state of the DB 92 fleet. There's pretty much 1 of their 6 in full-working order (or at least was yesterday). 3 in Crewe IEMD, the one mentioned with the over-heating issue and then another which failed yesterday.

DB have been spot-hiring GBRf's 92s (032 and I think 044) on and off for a fair bit now (mentioned a few pages back).

Just shows what happens when you start off with 30x 92s and put little effort into keeping them in good order and reduce their use to the absolute minimum (i.e. tunnel/HS1 only) vs if you invest some time/money into these locos as GBRf have done.

I know some thought GBRf were making themselves a laughing stock for sticking with the 92s through the early troubles on the sleeper, but I suspect they're not laughing at them anymore as at this rate there's only one UK company that will have locos to get freight (fairly!) reliably through the tunnel (or even at all).

 

[CosherB]

This Flickr post from yesterday from "Nightshiftworker" https://flic.kr/p/WxadgJ gives more info on the current dire state of the DB 92 fleet. There's pretty much 1 of their 6 in full-working order (or at least was yesterday). 3 in Crewe IEMD, the one mentioned with the over-heating issue and then another which failed yesterday.

DB have been spot-hiring GBRf's 92s (032 and I think 044) on and off for a fair bit now (mentioned a few pages back).

Just shows what happens when you start off with 30x 92s and put little effort into keeping them in good order and reduce their use to the absolute minimum (i.e. tunnel/HS1 only) vs if you invest some time/money into these locos as GBRf have done.

I know some thought GBRf were making themselves a laughing stock for sticking with the 92s through the early troubles on the sleeper, but I suspect they're not laughing at them anymore as at this rate there's only one UK company that will have locos to get freight (fairly!) reliably through the tunnel (or even at all).

If DBC had won the haulage contract for the CS, then they would have had to have done something similar to what GBRf has achieved with their 92s, giving a larger fleet of locos in regular use. In the cold light of day, with only tunnel traffic left for 6 DBC 92s out of a fleet of 30, this situation was always likely to happen. Sad indeed.

 

[TimboM]

If DBC had won the haulage contract for the CS, then they would have had to have done something similar to what GBRf has achieved with their 92s, giving a larger fleet of locos in regular use. In the cold light of day, with only tunnel traffic left for 6 DBC 92s out of a fleet of 30, this situation was always likely to happen. Sad indeed.

Maybe GBRf won it as they were the only ones prepared to back the 92s? Although not sure what came first - the ETS-guzzling stock that would need a 92, or a traction provider with 92s, which enabled them to build stock with high ETS requirement?

I suspect either way a modern rake of 16 Sleeper coaches with all bells and whistles and gadgets on would be too much for anything bar a 92 anyway.

The decision to only use the 92s for the tunnel and run such a small fleet is DB's choice (based on running costs, reliability etc vs other options they have/had for majority of workings the 92s did, e.g. hundreds of 66s; 2x 90s etc.).

GBRf didn't (and still don't) have any other A/C options really (unless they bought new or the 90s which seem to be back in fashion now) so had to get the 92s to work. I'm sure it's not been cheap for them - and I can understand DB's decision most likely stacked up in the short term.

However, they're now left with a small fleet which appears to have its issues, whereas the only other company with these tunnel-capable locos have a growing fleet of ones which seem to be working pretty well. Longer term could be a further blow to them (hindsight is a wonderful thing mind).

I also wonder how much knowledge/skills are left re 92s at Crewe IEMD - I'm sure there's still some, but with a dwindling fleet naturally it won't be what it was when they were maintaining 30 (or more) of them. Compare this to GBRf's which go to Brush for any major work, who not only built the things, but have been working on overhauling/modifying 92s now pretty much for the last c.3 years.

Talking of which, here's 92028 with it's first full load after many many months being lovingly cared for at Loughborough: https://flic.kr/p/VnbxQC

 

[BRX]

Maybe GBRf won it as they were the only ones prepared to back the 92s? Although not sure what came first - the ETS-guzzling stock that would need a 92, or a traction provider with 92s, which enabled them to build stock with high ETS requirement?

I suspect either way a modern rake of 16 Sleeper coaches with all bells and whistles and gadgets on would be too much for anything bar a 92 anyway.

The decision to only use the 92s for the tunnel and run such a small fleet is DB's choice (based on running costs, reliability etc vs other options they have/had for majority of workings the 92s did, e.g. hundreds of 66s; 2x 90s etc.).

GBRf didn't (and still don't) have any other A/C options really (unless they bought new or the 90s which seem to be back in fashion now) so had to get the 92s to work. I'm sure it's not been cheap for them - and I can understand DB's decision most likely stacked up in the short term.

However, they're now left with a small fleet which appears to have its issues, whereas the only other company with these tunnel-capable locos have a growing fleet of ones which seem to be working pretty well. Longer term could be a further blow to them (hindsight is a wonderful thing mind).

I also wonder how much knowledge/skills are left re 92s at Crewe IEMD - I'm sure there's still some, but with a dwindling fleet naturally it won't be what it was when they were maintaining 30 (or more) of them. Compare this to GBRf's which go to Brush for any major work, who not only built the things, but have been working on overhauling/modifying 92s now pretty much for the last c.3 years.

Talking of which, here's 92028 with it's first full load after many many months being lovingly cared for at Loughborough: https://flic.kr/p/VnbxQC

I was thinking you could almost argue this is a (rare) example of privatisation doing what it's supposed to - two companies pursue different strategies, one of them turns out to have (maybe) made the right call, and as a consequence they profit (perhaps?). Compared with a single-operator setup where the wrong call is applied system wide, and you end up not being able to run any freight through the tunnel because the locos are all broken.

 

[TimboM]

I was thinking you could almost argue this is a (rare) example of privatisation doing what it's supposed to - two companies pursue different strategies, one of them turns out to have (maybe) made the right call, and as a consequence they profit (perhaps?). Compared with a single-operator setup where the wrong call is applied system wide, and you end up not being able to run any freight through the tunnel because the locos are all broken.

I think it's a fair argument. Not sure how much of it was due to great foresight and doing what was necessary/most obvious at the time (e.g. EWS had lots of other options vs the unreliable/expensive 92s; GBRf only had 92s and nothing else, so they had to make them work).

Also provides a good illustration of what the 92s are - exceptionally capable pieces of kit - which means they can be very useful for specific jobs (channel tunnel / high-ETS 1,500v sleepers / heavy freight), but also unreliable/temperamental due to their complexity if investment/effort is not made to keep them in good order.

 

[TimboM]

Been a few weeks, but full-house of 92s on the Sleepers tonight.

92014 (I think, if not 018), 92044, 92033, 92023 and 92010 doing the honours.

 

[50039]

Been a few weeks, but full-house of 92s on the Sleepers tonight.

92014 (I think, if not 018), 92044, 92033, 92023 and 92010 doing the honours.

Do you know which one of those was the northbound Lowland? I took a London Midland service out of Euston and the CS looked mighty fine with 86101 on the buffers and a 92 on the front...

 

[TimboM]

Do you know which one of those was the northbound Lowland? I took a London Midland service out of Euston and the CS looked mighty fine with 86101 on the buffers and a 92 on the front...

That was 92044 on 1S26 - the only operational Triple Grey GBRf 92 remaining.

The other allocations (all Sleeper liveried) were:

1S25 (Highlander north): 92014
1M11 (Lowlander south): 92023
1M16 (Highlander south): 92033
1C11/1B26 (Lowlander Edinburgh portion): 92010

(86401 the other ECS loco at the Glasgow end)

Meanwhile 92028 was bringing the car train up from Dagenham to Garston overnight (6X41) and 92032 was working through the tunnel on-hire to DB, meaning seven of the eight 92s currently in service were working last night (92018 the only one not - at Willesden TMD as it has been last couple of weeks).

 

[alexf380]

Can anybody tell me what was on 1M11 last night, and whether it's likely to stay on that rotation all week? I'm booked to be heading north on Wednesday night and am hoping for a winning loco.

Cheers!

 

[TimboM]

Can anybody tell me what was on 1M11 last night, and whether it's likely to stay on that rotation all week? I'm booked to be heading north on Wednesday night and am hoping for a winning loco.

Cheers!

1M11 was 92044 (the Triple Grey one) on one of its 'guest appearances' - only does a "there and back" about twice per month at most.

Chances are it won't stay on as tomorrow night is the weekly China Clay run so it usually goes down from Willesden to Dollands Moor during Tuesday (STP 0O92) to assist 92032 with the tanks through the tunnel and sometimes works the train north itself too. (There wasn't a china clay last week, so not sure if that makes this week's more or less likely..!)

92044 took over the particular Lowlander rotation from F/liner 90044 on Friday night. There's currently a light engine move in progress (VSTP 0Z90) from Willesden to Crewe Basford Hall and one coming the other way later (VSTP 0Z91). Not had an ID on 0Z90 yet, but it's the typical paths (and headcodes) for the periodic rotation of the on-hire Freightliner 90s.

The other one currently on-hire (90047) was also at Willesden/Wembley today (and past few days) so not sure which one (044 or 047) it is they're switching, or which 90 is coming the other way (90016, 042, 045, 048 and 049 were all at Crewe Basford Hall this morning, so doesn't narrow it down much!)

Could well be that one of the F/Liner 90s gets back on this rotation, but probably won't know until tonight which of the 7 possible options it is!

[EDIT: 90045 is the loco that's moved down from Crewe today, replacing 90047]

The other option may be 92018 - that's been in Willesden for more than 2 weeks now, though, so presumably receiving a bit of attention and so may well do an ECS move or two first.

The ones you probably won't get (although of course things can swap around) are:

92010 (has been on the Lowlander Edinburgh portion circuit last week and a half)
92014/92033 (done the Highlander between them for last 2 weeks)
92023 - on the Lowlander but the other 'end' (i.e. is in Glasgow today, so will be heading South on Wed night if stays on that rotation)

 

[alexf380]

Thanks for that Tim. 92010 being on the Edinburgh portion is good news as it's required, and that's where I'm heading! I shall keep an eye on this thread (and the main sleeper one) tonight and tomorrow as I'm sure updates shall be forthcoming.

Thanks again, bud!

 

[TimboM]

Thanks for that Tim. 92010 being on the Edinburgh portion is good news as it's required, and that's where I'm heading! I shall keep an eye on this thread (and the main sleeper one) tonight and tomorrow as I'm sure updates shall be forthcoming.

Thanks again, bud!

No problem. I'm sure we can provide updates later...!

Good luck with 92010 - hopefully it stays on the 1C11/1B26 circuit. Only 'danger' is it's getting to that point where it's done it for a week and a half and 92014/033 have done the Highlander for 2+ weeks and they decide to shuffle things around :-/ Hopefully they can leave it be for a few more day

That said, if they did swap, could well be they send an F/L 90 up tonight on 1S26, then put that on the Carstairs/Edinburgh tomorrow night and 92010 then takes over 1M11, thus being your loco for 1S26 on Wed night... anyway guessing now. Will see what pans out!

 

[87015]

Some palava with 92014 this morning, nice TIN showing loco issues on the up Inverness around Crewe, actual train has 14 but half decent amount of knock on delays...

 

[TimboM]

Some palava with 92014 this morning, nice TIN showing loco issues on the up Inverness around Crewe, actual train has 14 but half decent amount of knock on delays...

What's a TIN for the uneducated amongst us? (Train Incident Notification?)

1M16 arrived at Crewe 19E, but left 10L, suggesting the issues were at Crewe station itself. Bit odd therefore how it caused knock-on delays if it was?
Lost a few more minutes after Crewe and arrived Euston 16L.

92014 tends to be one of the better behaved ones too.

 

[43096]

What's a TIN for the uneducated amongst us? (Train Incident Notification?)

1M16 arrived at Crewe 19E, but left 10L, suggesting the issues were at Crewe station itself. Bit odd therefore how it caused knock-on delays if it was?
Lost a few more minutes after Crewe and arrived Euston 16L.

92014 tends to be one of the better behaved ones too.

TIN is a Technical INcident. TRUST creates a TIN after a 3 minute delay is incurred.

Fleet reliability (as published annually in Modern Railways) is measured as Miles per TIN (or MTIN). The GBRf 92 fleet has gone from 8,000 to 32,000 MTIN in recent months as a result of the refurbishment programme.

 

[TimboM]

TIN is a Technical INcident. TRUST creates a TIN after a 3 minute delay is incurred.

Fleet reliability (as published annually in Modern Railways) is measured as Miles per TIN (or MTIN). The GBRf 92 fleet has gone from 8,000 to 32,000 MTIN in recent months as a result of the refurbishment programme.

Thanks for the explanation - saw that stat in Modern Railways, and notable it still includes some of the "unmodified" 92s that were involved on the Sleeper in that period (038 and 044 in particular).

Back to last night, presumably multiple TINs can be reported for the same period of time, then? Per RTT (which I know isn't infallible) the train was at Crewe for 32.5 mins vs the scheduled 3 mins - so 29.5 mins hold up. However, it arrived at Crewe 19E (05:20 vs 05:39 on the WTT). I'd have thought (logically) TRUST's (automatic?) reporting of a TIN causing a delay would therefore only occur once it'd 'used up' the 19 minutes it was already ahead. That would mean 10.5 mins when it was actually delayed beyond the WTT scheduled departure (and 7.5 mins after the delay was >3 mins).

Clearly I don't know the ins and outs of this or how it usually works, but 14 TINs for the train itself for what seems to amount to 7.5 minutes beyond the theshold is quite impressive?

My money's on the 92 needing a "reboot".

 

[87015]

Thanks for the explanation - saw that stat in Modern Railways, and notable it still includes some of the "unmodified" 92s that were involved on the Sleeper in that period (038 and 044 in particular).

Back to last night, presumably multiple TINs can be reported for the same period of time, then? Per RTT (which I know isn't infallible) the train was at Crewe for 32.5 mins vs the scheduled 3 mins - so 29.5 mins hold up. However, it arrived at Crewe 19E (05:20 vs 05:39 on the WTT). I'd have thought (logically) TRUST's (automatic?) reporting of a TIN causing a delay would therefore only occur once it'd 'used up' the 19 minutes it was already ahead. That would mean 10.5 mins when it was actually delayed beyond the WTT scheduled departure (and 7.5 mins after the delay was >3 mins).

Clearly I don't know the ins and outs of this or how it usually works, but 14 TINs for the train itself for what seems to amount to 7.5 minutes beyond the theshold is quite impressive?

My money's on the 92 needing a "reboot".

Apologies for being unclear. The 14 is the minutes accrued to 1M16 itself, everything else being knock on (can't remember the total, it was nothing earth shattering). I didn't look into it in detail just saw it earlier and thought I'd throw it in here, will try to proof read better next time!

 

[TimboM]

Apologies for being unclear. The 14 is the minutes accrued to 1M16 itself, everything else being knock on (can't remember the total, it was nothing earth shattering). I didn't look into it in detail just saw it earlier and thought I'd throw it in here, will try to proof read better next time!

Ah with you now, thanks for the clarification.

Yes, not a biggy in the history of Sleeper delays

Looks like 92014 is back in action tonight, so can't have been too major a problem.

 

[TimboM]

Thanks for that Tim. 92010 being on the Edinburgh portion is good news as it's required, and that's where I'm heading! I shall keep an eye on this thread (and the main sleeper one) tonight and tomorrow as I'm sure updates shall be forthcoming.

Thanks again, bud!

A Caley Sleeper 92's just taken the Highlander ECS into Euston, so that is almost certain to be the 1S26 loco later. Couldn't quite make it out, but looked like 92014 (the only other option would be 92018 - but think that's still stopped at Willesden). EDIT: 95% sure it's 92014 now...

So for now at least appears that 92014 is in the "driving seat" for being your haulage north on Wed. All could change around yet though...

92023 is also reported as heading into Glasgow on the ECS for 1M11 later tonight, which should mean 92010 sticks on the Carstairs circuit

The Freightliner 90 switch today was 90047 heading back from Willesden to Crewe Basford Hall and 90045 coming the other way and going straight onto tonight's 1S25 Highlander.

 

[59CosG95]

A Caley Sleeper 92's just taken the Highlander ECS into Euston, so that is almost certain to be the 1S26 loco later. Couldn't quite make it out, but looked like 92014 (the only other option would be 92018 - but think that's still stopped at Willesden). EDIT: 95% sure it's 92014 now...

So for now at least appears that 92014 is in the "driving seat" for being your haulage north on Wed. All could change around yet though...

92023 is also reported as heading into Glasgow on the ECS for 1M11 later tonight, which should mean 92010 sticks on the Carstairs circuit

The Freightliner 90 switch today was 90047 heading back from Willesden to Crewe Basford Hall and 90045 coming the other way and going straight onto tonight's 1S25 Highlander.

Would it be too early to guess what might drop on 1S26 on Thursday? Heading up to Carlisle that night.

 

[TimboM]

Would it be too early to guess what might drop on 1S26 on Thursday? Heading up to Carlisle that night.

Current guess would be 92023 as it's been on that rotation for the last week or so and did 1M11 last night (so if stays on would do 1S26 tonight and Thu night). But of course could change.

 

[59CosG95]

Current guess would be 92023 as it's been on that rotation for the last week or so and did 1M11 last night (so if stays on would do 1S26 tonight and Thu night). But of course could change.

Ah, thanks very much TimboM! All I can do now is wait I suppose...

 

[BRX]

1M11 was 92044 (the Triple Grey one) on one of its 'guest appearances' - only does a "there and back" about twice per month at most.

Chances are it won't stay on as tomorrow night is the weekly China Clay run so it usually goes down from Willesden to Dollands Moor during Tuesday (STP 0O92) to assist 92032 with the tanks through the tunnel and sometimes works the train north itself too. (There wasn't a china clay last week, so not sure if that makes this week's more or less likely..!)

I can confirm 92044 has gone back down to Dollands today, has just passed me here in south London.

 

[TimboM]

I can confirm 92044 has gone back down to Dollands today, has just passed me here in south London.

Suggests it will be collecting the China Clay tanks tonight with 92032 (if the latter can be prised away from DB!).

If the tanks are running, I believe DB still require the services of 92032, so could well be 92044 hauling the working North as it did on the last working a fortnight ago.

Interestingly there's two paths in again tomorrow for 6S94 - one via the Settle & Carlisle and one via the WCML. They both also have the train going to Irvine via Beattock and Mossend, rather than the 66 taking it from Carlisle via Dumfries. Apparently the S&C route is intended to be used at some point, but not sure when or why. If it runs, will be interesting to see which way it goes and hence what the traction is.

 

[railhead56]

They both also have the train going to Irvine via Beattock and Mossend, rather than the 66 taking it from Carlisle via Dumfries.

I believe there is a nine day closure at Mauchline on the Dumfries route so Mossend makes sense.

 

[TimboM]

I believe there is a nine day closure at Mauchline on the Dumfries route so Mossend makes sense.

You'd think it'd be a 92 along the WCML path tomorrow then (rather than S&C). Can't see a 66 taking on Beattock single-handedly with nigh on 2,000 tonnes in tow.

 

[xotGD]

Suggests it will be collecting the China Clay tanks tonight with 92032 (if the latter can be prised away from DB!).

If the tanks are running, I believe DB still require the services of 92032, so could well be 92044 hauling the working North as it did on the last working a fortnight ago.

Interestingly there's two paths in again tomorrow for 6S94 - one via the Settle & Carlisle and one via the WCML. They both also have the train going to Irvine via Beattock and Mossend, rather than the 66 taking it from Carlisle via Dumfries. Apparently the S&C route is intended to be used at some point, but not sure when or why. If it runs, will be interesting to see which way it goes and hence what the traction is.

It would be interesting if they keep the 92 on the front and treat it as a drag over the S&C with a 66.