-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Caledonian Sleeper discussion
- Thread starter LeylandLen
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
matchmaker
Established Member
You've answered your own question!
RE. can the 66 & 67 work in multiple together? They both use AAR multiple working.
If you look at DarloRich2009 on flickr (Sorry I cant find the shortcut to the pic) there is a shot of 66710 at Milton Keynes Central that shows the AAR multiple working cable is plugged into both locos. Ive seen pairs of 66s working in multi and pairs of 67s in multi before but never a mix of the two.
If you look at DarloRich2009 on flickr (Sorry I cant find the shortcut to the pic) there is a shot of 66710 at Milton Keynes Central that shows the AAR multiple working cable is plugged into both locos. Ive seen pairs of 66s working in multi and pairs of 67s in multi before but never a mix of the two.
Last edited:
Given that during fleet software updates units of the same subclass aren't always able to work together, I'm not convinced I have!
Cheers, At least you know what your doing
And this morning it goes from bad to worse - 1M16 cancelled at Aviemore. 
causton
Established Member
And this morning it goes from bad to worse - 1M16 cancelled at Aviemore.
Which seems to have confused RTT, with the "Planned to terminate at" with no station shown if you check the listing :P
Not a good few days is it!
And if you look at the Aberdeen and Fort William portions, they say that they join with 1M16 at Edinburgh "towards Aviemore".
Presumably, though, the Aberdeen and Fort William portions did continue to Euston?
Jordy
Established Member
Yes, only 8 coaches of 1M16 at Euston this morning!
87015
Established Member
1M16 (yes, last nights) is reported back at Inverness after spending the night at Slochd - passengers forward on the 09xx Inverness-Edinburgh. Having waved at the tram and other early southbounds going flying past.
What a complete Grade A farce. Again.
What a complete Grade A farce. Again.
Last edited:
causton
Established Member
Christ that's bad... I thought at the worst they would get the East Coast!
Edit: Looking at it, following minimum connection times etc, if they went down the East Coast they would get back to London at 1945!
Last edited:
sprinterguy
Veteran Member
Well, I wouldn't go that far.
They're not a patch on the haulage capabilities or technological advancement of a class 60 from ten years previously, for example. As others have pointed out, it would have required both 66s taking power to shift the HOBC.They're competent bread and butter machines, really, which is okay seeing as that is what the freight operators are asking of them.
Last edited:
LeylandLen
Member
See this new thread :Caledonian Sleeper 30 July, in UK Railway Discussions, interesting read x
Last edited:
One thing I've noticed lately is there seems to be a fairly large amount of failures of one degree or another with the Caledonians since Serco have taken over, what I'm curious of is it just a case of noticing it more as GBRf, Serco, the 92s etc are being watched more at the moment or is it due to the 92s finding their feet etc?
I'm also curious of the recent failure of the 66 (with 67 for ETS)-could the 67 have taken over or would the rake have been too much for it to handle?
Has the failure rate actually increased or again is it just because we are taken more notice?
GM228
I'm also curious of the recent failure of the 66 (with 67 for ETS)-could the 67 have taken over or would the rake have been too much for it to handle?
Has the failure rate actually increased or again is it just because we are taken more notice?
GM228
Allot of the 92 have been in stores for the last years so are not going to be at the best there is also something about them have channel tunnel wiring in them to make them less prone to brake down in the tunnel, but that has a adverse effect while on the main line in England and Scotland making them harder to fix if they trip out lets say on a neutral section. In regards to the 66 it ran out of coolant so had to be stopped at Milton Keynes Central, reasoning why the 67 did not just carry on is I think because it had already lost its path and trying to negotiate getting into euston+ the ecs would be to difficult so it is better to just cape the train there. My opinion on the 92 is that they should be given time to settle in and with the required modifications to the electrical wiring they should be as good as the 90.
Sam.
Sam.
I thought the 92s have started to settle down a bit now anyway.
Jamesb1974
Member
- Joined
- 20 Mar 2006
- Messages
- 596
Deleted
Last edited:
The 92s were meant to work in the tunnels on freight and passenger sleeper services but the sleeper service never materialized and there was not enough freight work for the whole class so they just sat in store, with not enough work for them. Gb railfright and Serco properly saw the potential in them but did not realize that they would need so much work needed to make them more reliable.
Things can only get better
Sam
sprinterguy
Veteran Member
Mid-October if the conversion/overhaul programme is still on schedule.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
More specifically, a piece of electrical equipment that detects stray electrical currents was being tripped when the locos were travelling through neutral sections on the WCML (I'm not sure why this hasn't been identified as an issue in their years of freight use?), as the equipment treats the neutral section as an interface issue between the overhead wire and the loco. The levels at which this equipment had been set were higher than necessary for the national network in order to allow operation through the Channel Tunnel, and have now been relaxed.
Jamesb1974
Member
- Joined
- 20 Mar 2006
- Messages
- 596
Deleted
Last edited:
33056
Established Member
Wait until winter and the first hard frost!
PHILIPE
Veteran Member
Serco, new operator, going for 92s instead of proven 90s and 73/9s, a completely unknown and untried commodity, instead of retaining use of 67s already proven to be reliable apart from the odd blip.
It's what GBRf could only offer.
Obviously DBS had the upper hand in locomotives suitable for sleeper operation and at least they've been willing to offer 90s and 67s for the time being.
If DRS were operating it as an example, they would have had to have hired in 90s from somewhere as they don't own anything electric until the 88s arrive.
So do the regular tunnel 92s still have this or have all 92s been relaxed? The reason I ask is because GBRf seem to be rotating all their 92s on the Caledonians and if it's only the dedicated fleet to be modified then their will be a failure risk each time they used any other 92?
Are Caledonian 92s still able to operate through the Tunnel if required not that that's likely to happen?
Point the finger at Scot Rail - they chose Serco / GBRf to operate the franchise. No doubt they undercut the others tenderers on cost, including the option where DBS would continue to provide 90's and 67's.
DBS were probably having to consider running 92's eventually due to the increased ETS required to run the new CAF stock coming online in a few years, or create a microfleet of 'Super ETS' 90's.
I'm sure GBRf will get it sorted eventually (both the 92's and 73's), although the 92's will need more TLC to keep them 'reliable'. Frankly, they'll have to sort it as hiring in 90's and 67's from DBS will no doubt be financially prohibative.
I'm all for finger pointing, but please point it in the right direction - Scotrail didn't set up the tendering process, nor did they pick the winner.
- Status