Caledonian Sleeper discussion

[Bungle965]

90045 apparently is on hire to GBRF from today.
Is it true though?
Sam

 

[87015]

I hope nobody is travelling north tonight as the entry in move book won't look very nice - skoda junk on both trains. The FL hire (90045 on the Glasgow) was being mooted a while back as DB unable to provide extra 90s.

I see after last weeks fiascos the 67 junk on the Inverness is no longer trusted alone and drags a mate along DIT as a security blanket. Even the dark days of red duffs and autumn were never that bad :roll:

Ps mods is it worth to rename/use this thread as sleeper traction or similar to save a new one every few weeks when something blows up

 

[CosherB]

90045 apparently is on hire to GBRF from today.
Is it true though?
Sam

For the Caledonian Sleepeer? This would be a bit of a departure as GBRf has been hiring in 90's from DBS, and 90045 is with Freightliner.....

 

[Bungle965]

For the Caledonian Sleepeer? This would be a bit of a departure as GBRf has been hiring in 90's from DBS, and 90045 is with Freightliner.....

Apparently it is true.
Sam

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/O16905/2015/08/07/advanced
90045 light engine move

 

[Bungle965]

I hope nobody is travelling north tonight as the entry in move book won't look very nice - skoda junk on both trains. The FL hire (90045 on the Glasgow) was being mooted a while back as DB unable to provide extra 90s.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
That is good though that Gb railfright/DB Schenker have thought to put another 67 into the consist for the time being until it settles down.
Sam
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/O16905/2015/08/07/advanced
90045 light engine move.
Sam

 

[87015]

For the Caledonian Sleepeer? This would be a bit of a departure as GBRf has been hiring in 90's from DBS, and 90045 is with Freightliner.....

Kind of makes sense, DB want their 90 back to replace 92s rather than hiring the four or five GBRf are after, FL have lots of spare diesels given the massive downturn in heavy haul work which will presumably head to intermodal.

Still at least the sleepers being said junk will save me some the effort of going north to come straight back south!

 

[Essexman]

Under Scotrail the sleepers seemed pretty reliable but from what I can see since the change of locomotives they seem to be breaking down far too often.

Was the purpose of the changes (those already made and those to come) to improve the service, save money or for some other reason(s)?

 

[Observer]

What's happened to 87002? Seems like it'd be a great asset at the moment.

Also in regards to the Class 86 and the ETH requirement, would double-heading 86101 and 86401 work?

Hopefully the traction issues are sorted out as soon as possible, otherwise I can't see GBRf lasting on sleeper operations due to reliability reasons. It's not just the 92s we should be worrying about after all.

 

[Highland37]

Realistically a 67 isnt up to a load over 6, but given they were built for light weight TPO work they didnt need anything stronger. Regearing to a more reasonable 95mph instead of the never-attainable 125 would make a big difference imho, after all, they needed 2 power cars to get a hst to 125 which themselves struggle with a load 9, so how on earth do they expect a single 67 to do it, esp with no compatible speed stock?

They haul the 8 coach Inverness portion every day it runs and with no major issues (relative to the new issues since the 92s became involved).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Hopefully the traction issues are sorted out as soon as possible, otherwise I can't see GBRf lasting on sleeper operations due to reliability reasons. It's not just the 92s we should be worrying about after all.

Does anyone have any figures on reliability with Serco versus First? My impression is that Serco are really struggling with reliability and they must be wondering if GBRF are able to provide them with a reliable solution in the long term.

I wonder if their solicitors are looking carefully at the contract clauses.....

 

[marks87]

Was the purpose of the changes (those already made and those to come) to improve the service, save money or for some other reason(s)?

As I understand it, 92s are required for the ETH demands of the new stock. Presumably they're being used now because the contract with GBRf is for the duration of the franchise (or at least long enough to take in the expected delivery window of the new stock).

Are there any current or proposed future electric locos capable of the same ETH output as a 92?

 

[sprinterguy]

Does anyone have any figures on reliability with Serco versus First?

Yes, in this post I provided in the main "Serco for Sleeper" thread:
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2250658&postcount=1092

PPM performance had fallen nearly 10% for the first month of operation under Serco compared to First Scotrail eleven months previously, but showed signs of improvement in May.

 

[Highland37]

Many thanks. I actually saw that.

I didn't phrase my post very well. I was more thinking of numbers of cancelled trains and failures where the train doesn't reach its destination.

 

[sprinterguy]

Ah, fair enough. I would be curious to see such statistics myself.

 

[GM228]

What's happened to 87002? Seems like it'd be a great asset at the moment.

Also in regards to the Class 86 and the ETH requirement, would double-heading 86101 and 86401 work?

Hopefully the traction issues are sorted out as soon as possible, otherwise I can't see GBRf lasting on sleeper operations due to reliability reasons. It's not just the 92s we should be worrying about after all.

86101 proved it can power the entire set solo when it worked to London a few nights ago!

 

[Bungle965]

86101 proved it can power the entire set solo when it worked to London a few nights ago!

I always thought that I could work the set, but the carriages had to be pre-warmed before it could would it. I'm sure someone can prove me wrong or right though.
Sam

 

[jopsuk]

at this time of year, "pre-warmed" isn't a problem...

 

[GM228]

How long is the GBRf contract with Serco for and how long is the 86s/87 hire in contract?

 

[MCR247]

How long is the GBRf contract with Serco for and how long is the 86s/87 hire in contract?

Both are the duration of the franchise aren't they?

 

[GM228]

Both are the duration of the franchise aren't they?

Isn't it a 30 year franchise? I doubt the AC hire in contract is that long!!

 

[MCR247]

Isn't it a 30 year franchise? I doubt the AC hire in contract is that long!!

Oh I didn't realise it was that long

 

[sprinterguy]

Isn't it a 30 year franchise?

No, it's a fifteen year franchise that ends in 2030.

 

[ainsworth74]

Aren't there some EU regulations that prevent an award of 20 years in length anyway?

 

[najaB]

Aren't there some EU regulations that prevent an award of 20 years in length anyway?

They don't out and out prevent long-term contracts, but you do have to go out of your way to show that they are reasonable and not anti-competitive - e.g. it will take that long to produce a return on investment. If long contracts were banned it would sound the death knell for private-sector infrastructure projects.

 

[ainsworth74]

Ah that makes sense thanks

 

[GM228]

No, it's a fifteen year franchise that ends in 2030.

Ah ha I knew there was a 30 in it somewhere!

 

[Blindtraveler]

No, it's a fifteen year franchise that ends in 2030.

And, sorry to be cynical but based on current performance that's 14 years 11 months too long - it should be returned to Scotrail!

I didn't know about the contracts thing either, interesting!

 

[Hadders]

It appears to me that the new franchise is problematic in many ways:

- they refuse to recognise the Local Scottish Routeing Guide Easements despite Scotrail confirming their validity.
- they have removed Advance fares for local seated passengers between Mallaig/Fort William and Glasgow/Edinburgh hugely increasing costs for local passengers using the sleeper train as a normal 'day train'.
- the trains are very unreliable.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Ps mods is it worth to rename/use this thread as sleeper traction or similar to save a new one every few weeks when something blows up

Agreed, iether that or merge and rename the Serco for sleaper thread to something like Caledonian Sleaper discussion?

 

[marks87]

And, sorry to be cynical but based on current performance that's 14 years 11 months too long - it should be returned to Scotrail!

Well, ScotRail is also being run by a new company. So there's no way of knowing what performance would have been like had the franchises not been split.

 

[ainsworth74]

- they have removed Advance fares for local seated passengers between Mallaig/Fort William and Glasgow/Edinburgh hugely increasing costs for local passengers using the sleeper train as a normal 'day train'.

See later posts.

Actually they still exist but their implementation into the Fares Database is incorrect as they are still routed Scotrail only so journey planners won't sell them. Instead they should be Caledonian Sleeper & Connections (or similar). However, as far as I'm aware, everyone is claiming it's everyone else's responsibility to fix.

That being said it is possible to purchase them still as I and a group of others used some on Friday night. It appears that Trainline powered sites will still sell them (certainly the FGW smartphone app, the Trainline itself and the Virgin Trains West Coast site do).

The only issues is that unless you can get them issued on new style stock from a specific sort of ticket machine they will say Scotrail only on them which could, possibly, cause issues with the guard on the train. Though that does seem highly unlikely.