Caledonian Sleeper discussion

[Scotrail84]

Tough. Are you going to ask GBRf to buy a micro fleet of 'super ETS' 88s?

It's not tough for me, it's tough for those who are paying good money. That's a ****e attitude you've got by the way.

 

[Scotrail84]

And?

HSTs can only do 125mph, so can't make up time after heavy delays.

I don't see how the situation with the 92s is any different with the vast majority of other trains around the country.

Sleepers are timed for 80. The 100 rule is to make up time.

 

[Scotrail84]

Yes, and when you're on the sleeper and it's doing 100 you know it.

I totally get situations like Monday morning, and maybe the new stock will be a revelation, but being in bed in a mk3 sleeper at full pelt is an experience outside my comfort zone, especially when I'm over the bogies...

Well, as cosherB says - tough......:roll:

 

[LeylandLen]

It appears that the stock 5S96 For 2350 dep , Lowlander, is still at Wembley ? Booked to arrive Euston 2124 ?

 

[TimboM]

Regarding the 87mph vs 100mph point, granted the 90s can make up more time by sacrificing a bit of passenger comfort and getting up to 100mph.

However, if we assume on a given night there's 200 miles where the train is actually running at 100 (bearing in mind various stops, restrictions, line changes etc.), then the 90 does takes 2 hours to cover this distance. The 92 does it in 2h 18m at 87mph. Factor in the 92 can get to 87 quicker, you're talking c.15 mins made up over 200 miles. Fair enough this could be the difference in making a connection (as was the case for Highland37), but in cases like Sunday night when the train is severely delayed, it makes a severe delay only marginally less severe.

Getting favourable signals/paths (e.g. routed onto Fast Lines) probably has more bearing on the train making up time.

The sleeper is timed at 80mph as mentioned with plenty of 'padding' in the timings at certain point, so on most normal nights there's no issue with the 92s keeping time and quite often be early too.

 

[TimboM]

It appears that the stock 5S96 For 2350 dep , Lowlander, is still at Wembley ? Booked to arrive Euston 2124 ?

It eventually made it into Euston just over 3 hours late! (0034). Resulted in the Lowlander departing 72 mins late.

CS have said in a tweet that "a fault developed on the loco which had to be investigated"... not sure what sort of "fault needing to be investigated" delays things by 3 hours?

It's been on the Fasts most of the way and had made up 44 mins by Nuneaton - will be interesting to see what the traction is that's recovering the delay...


UPDATE: It's a 90 (90049) - helping prove the point about 100mph running... Back on time by Warrington.
Perhaps wasn't the originally intended traction for 1S26 tonight...?

 

[Scotrail84]

Regarding the 87mph vs 100mph point, granted the 90s can make up more time by sacrificing a bit of passenger comfort and getting up to 100mph.

However, if we assume on a given night there's 200 miles where the train is actually running at 100 (bearing in mind various stops, restrictions, line changes etc.), then the 90 does takes 2 hours to cover this distance. The 92 does it in 2h 18m at 87mph. Factor in the 92 can get to 87 quicker, you're talking c.15 mins made up over 200 miles. Fair enough this could be the difference in making a connection (as was the case for Highland37), but in cases like Sunday night when the train is severely delayed, it makes a severe delay only marginally less severe.

Getting favourable signals/paths (e.g. routed onto Fast Lines) probably has more bearing on the train making up time.

The sleeper is timed at 80mph as mentioned with plenty of 'padding' in the timings at certain point, so on most normal nights there's no issue with the 92s keeping time and quite often be early too.

Last night 1S25 was 40 late Hemel Hempstead with a 90 on it was 10 early on arrival Crewe. A 92 would not have made that up.

Tonight 1M11 was 18 late at beattock and is still 8 down at garstang and catteral, a 90 would have made that up by now.

 

[Scotrail84]

It eventually made it into Euston just over 3 hours late! (0034). Resulted in the Lowlander departing 72 mins late.

CS have said in a tweet that "a fault developed on the loco which had to be investigated"... not sure what sort of "fault needing to be investigated" delays things by 3 hours?

It's been on the Fasts most of the way and had made up 44 mins by Nuneaton - will be interesting to see what the traction is that's recovering the delay...


UPDATE: It's a 90 (90049) - helping prove the point about 100mph running... Back on time by Warrington.
Perhaps wasn't the originally intended traction for 1S26 tonight...?

It's a class 90 on 1S26 by the way.

 

[TimboM]

It's a class 90 on 1S26 by the way.

Aye - spotted that hence the Edit on the post.
Wonder if it was always booked on it, or was a late sub?

 

[Scotrail84]

Aye - spotted that hence the Edit on the post.
Wonder if it was always booked on it, or was a late sub?

Was meant to be a 92 but hey ho.

 

[Essexman]

Regarding the 87mph vs 100mph point, granted the 90s can make up more time by sacrificing a bit of passenger comfort and getting up to 100mph.

However, if we assume on a given night there's 200 miles where the train is actually running at 100 (bearing in mind various stops, restrictions, line changes etc.), then the 90 does takes 2 hours to cover this distance. The 92 does it in 2h 18m at 87mph. Factor in the 92 can get to 87 quicker, you're talking c.15 mins made up over 200 miles. Fair enough this could be the difference in making a connection (as was the case for Highland37), but in cases like Sunday night when the train is severely delayed, it makes a severe delay only marginally less severe.

Getting favourable signals/paths (e.g. routed onto Fast Lines) probably has more bearing on the train making up time.

The sleeper is timed at 80mph as mentioned with plenty of 'padding' in the timings at certain point, so on most normal nights there's no issue with the 92s keeping time and quite often be early too.

I'd agree with that but assume there may be occasions where a top speed of 100mph would allow a fast line path but at 87mph it will be caught up more quickly by a faster train so have to be routed on the slow lines.

 

[CosherB]

It's not tough for me, it's tough for those who are paying good money. That's a ****e attitude you've got by the way.

Attitude?! Oh please, get real! The situation is 92 or nothing for Anglo-Scottish runs as it stands, it's nothing to do with attitude!

Being the helpful proactive chap that I am, here are some alternatives you may want to consider:

Redesign the 92s to run at a maximum speed of 99mph.
GBRf somehow procure 90s from DBC and uprate the ETS to 180.
GBRf somehow procure 86/6s from Freightliner, reconfigure to 86/4 and uprate ETS to 180.
New build of 88s with uprated ETS to 180.
GBRf procure a new batch of 68s with uprated ETS to 180.
GBRf somehow procure 67s from DBC and uprate ETS to 180.
GBRf somehow procure 57/3s from DRS and uprate ETS to 180.

All of the above options, I'd say, are pretty unlikely from a technical and/or financial perspective.

Perhaps your ire should be directed to Transport Scotland for selecting Serco to operate the CS franchise, knowing that the GBRf traction options included the 92s that can only operate at a maximum speed of 87mph.

 

[Highland37]

It seems that it's mainly your ire that needs to be re-directed CosherB.

I don't think this is Transport Scotland "fault" at all. They are not a train operating company.

When the traction is not as planned, it's an issue for the traction company, in this case GB Railfreight. They have done a commendable job getting other things in place to cover for the problems but there are problems. It's an issue for the traction company.

Clearly TS knew the 92s could do 87mph max but the decisions will have been based on a slightly less fluid situation than is currently the case. The 92s and 73s should have been in service, reliably, by now. That they are not is not Transport Scotland's fault.

 

[Marklund]

That they are not is not Transport Scotland's fault.

TS set the specification, and judged the bids, and TS thought bringing a known class of locomotives with a dubious past in to service was acceptable.

This lies firmly at TS's door.

 

[CosherB]

It seems that it's mainly your ire that needs to be re-directed CosherB.

I've no axe to grind with anyone. It's no use anyone moaning about 92s, they're here for the duration of the Serco contract.

 

[Highland37]

TS set the specification, and judged the bids, and TS thought bringing a known class of locomotives with a dubious past in to service was acceptable.

This lies firmly at TS's door.

And whose advice would they have listen to regarding the 92s? Are you suggesting that GBrf or Serco were not confident in the traction before their contract even started? If that was the case then you would be right.

However I tend to think that when a traction supplier says they can deliver something, they actually mean it.

 

[Marklund]

And whose advice would they have listen to regarding the 92s?

Their own team of "experts" that deal with the letting the contracts, as in the same one who went for quality in the ScotRail re-let franchise.

 

[CosherB]

And whose advice would they have listen to regarding the 92s? Are you suggesting that GBrf or Serco were not confident in the traction before their contract even started? If that was the case then you would be right.

However I tend to think that when a traction supplier says they can deliver something, they actually mean it.

And they have? GBRf have leased 90s from Freightliner to cover the 92s, and have had 66s in multi with 73/9s, leased a 67 from DBC and a 47 from Colas. GBRf have delivered a service, albeit through convoluted means on occasions. Don't think for one minute that GBRf are enjoying all of this engineering grief, they more than anyone would have wanted a smooth introductions for the 92s and 73/9s.

 

[Highland37]

And they have? GBRf have leased 90s from Freightliner to cover the 92s, and have had 66s in multi with 73/9s, leased a 67 from DBC and a 47 from Colas. GBRf have delivered a service, albeit through convoluted means on occasions. Don't think for one minute that GBRf are enjoying all of this engineering grief, they more than anyone would have wanted a smooth introductions for the 92s and 73/9s.

Totally agree with you there. It's the reputational damage that is being done currently with the slightly uncertain service. I don't trust CS to get me to London on time. I do trust Easyjet though.

 

[Highland37]

Their own team of "experts" that deal with the letting the contracts, as in the same one who went for quality in the ScotRail re-let franchise.

Me thinks they might have had one or two discussions with traction suppliers as well. You know, the ones who say they can supply the traction according to the spec set out. No one forced them to actively bid for the contract.

 

[CosherB]

Totally agree with you there. It's the reputational damage that is being done currently with the slightly uncertain service. I don't trust CS to get me to London on time. I do trust Easyjet though.

Is that based on experience or armchair opinion?

 

[CosherB]

Me thinks they might have had one or two discussions with traction suppliers as well. You know, the ones who say they can supply the traction according to the spec set out. No one forced them to actively bid for the contract.

What are you on about? Traction provision was integral to each bid for the CS franchise - IIRC First with DBC, Arriva with DRS and Serco with GBRf - there was no cherry-picking or mix-and-match.

 

[Marklund]

Me thinks they might have had one or two discussions with traction suppliers as well. You know, the ones who say they can supply the traction according to the spec set out. No one forced them to actively bid for the contract.

No-one forced them to take everything at first hand from the traction suppliers.
That's why they have their own government department to make their mind up, and they decided to go with the 92s, known history and all.

They chose the Serco/GBRf option. That's their ultimate problem.

 

[Highland37]

Is that based on experience or armchair opinion?

Experience. I live in Inverness and travel to the Alps often, and often via London. 50% of the time I have used the sleeper it has been late or certainly uncertain until actual arrival. It's a stress I can do without to be honest. It's also more expensive but I like to use the train and support the sleeper.

If I get Easyjet to Gatwick or Luton it's almost 100% reliable and I make my connection.

 

[Highland37]

They chose the Serco/GBRf option. That's their ultimate problem.

Fully agree with you there!

 

[Wookiee]

I'd agree with that but assume there may be occasions where a top speed of 100mph would allow a fast line path but at 87mph it will be caught up more quickly by a faster train so have to be routed on the slow lines.

Not too many trains going faster than the sleeper in the middle of the night, I'd have thought.

 

[Marklund]

Not too many trains going faster than the sleeper in the middle of the night, I'd have thought.

Morning arrivals?

 

[Wookiee]

Morning arrivals?

Make them wait!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Fully agree with you there!

I don't, it's more about the ageing, knackered rolling stock.

Does everyone remember how unreliable the WCML and XC were in the days of the old stock?

 

[Marklund]

Never been on a 2 hour late sleeper obviously!